000			01433cab a2200181 4500
001			ABS41565
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u30945
041			_aeng
245			_aToyota (GB) Ltd v Legal and General Assurance (Pensions Management) Ltd
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 42 EG 104-111(4)
520			_aCA 21 June 1989. The property was a national distribution centre for spare parts for cars comprising 5 acres with warehouse and other buildings. In 1973 T were granted two underleases by J, the then lessors, the combined effect of which was a term of 50years. The leases were identical to avoid a higher rate of stamp duty , as a lease over 35 years was rated at 6% as opposed to 1%. Rent reviews were set at five yearly intervals, to be either the maximum yearly rent in the preceding year or open market value whichever is the higher. A problem arose at the third rent review in 1988 when one year remained on the first lease. T contended it should be valued as such, the landlord L claimed that the second lease, which had 35 years to run, should be taken into account. It was held in favour of J; L appealed. Appeal allowed. The only reason for having two leases was to avoid stamp duty; there had never been any intention of ending the tenancy.
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c20825 _d20825