| 000 | 01477cab a2200193 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS43700 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u43079 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aRoyal Life Insurance v Phillips | ||
| 260 | _c1990 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(1990) 43 EG 70-76(4) |
||
| 520 | _aQBD 5 March 1990. By a lease dated 27 January 1977 a company (B) of whom the plaintiffs (R) are the successors in title, let a shop premises for a 20 year term to another company of whom the defendants (P) are the successors in title. The rent for the first five years was £12,000 with a five yearly rent review when it should be increased to the open market value or remain as it was. The rent review was operated in 1981 and increased to £16,000. In June 1986 B wrote to P notifying a rent increase to £39,000, however this letter was headed "subject to contract" and " Without prejudice " and the case rests on whether this deprives the trigger notice of being effective for the purposes of the lease. P queried the high increase but R`s solicitor denied that this was a valid notice as the original letter was not a negotiating document but a notice advocating the rent review procedure . QBD held in R`s favour saying that the letter was a valid notice on the grounds that it had been properly | ||
| 650 | _aRECORDED DELIVERY | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c27546 _d27546 |
||