| 000 | 01094cab a2200241 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | WB3031-44 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u30197 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aRent review | ||
| 260 | _c1994 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette Case Summaries _v(1994) EGCS 146(1) (11/8/94) |
||
| 520 | _a"Bickenhall Engineering Co Ltd v Grandmet Restaurants Ltd" CA 29 July 1994. Following failure to agree rent at review, the lessor issued a writ for arrears of rent in accordance with the lease provisions. Argument arose as to whether time was of the essence in serving a counternotice. Judgment for the lessor, but the lessee appealed successfully with the CA deciding that a rebuttal presumption meant that no time limit applied to the counternotice. | ||
| 650 | _aCOUNTER NOTICE | ||
| 650 | _aREBUTTAL PRESUMPTION | ||
| 650 | _aRENT REVIEWS | ||
| 650 | _aTIME OF THE ESSENCE | ||
| 650 | _aUNITED SCIENTIFIC HOLDINGS LTD V BURNLEY BC 1977 | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c20346 _d20346 |
||