| 000 | 01229cab a2200253 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS47082 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u60747 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aAppeals from expert`s decisions | ||
| 260 | _c1992 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aProperty Law Bulletin _v13(4) September 1992, 27-28(2) |
||
| 520 | _aExamines two recent High Court decisions "Pontsarn Investments Ltd v Kansallis-Osake-Pankki" 1992 and "PosTel Properties Ltd v Greenwell" 1992 upholding the principle that an expert`s decision is legal and binding and cannot be challenged in a court of law. However it is pointed out that in the `PosTel Properties` case, the parties would be entitled to apply to a court for a declaration as to the proper construction of the rent review clause. | ||
| 650 | _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION | ||
| 650 | _aEXPERT | ||
| 650 | _aNIKKO HOTELS (UK) LTD V MEPC PLC | ||
| 650 | _aPONTSARN INVESTMENTS LTD V KANSALLIS-OSAKE-PANKKI | ||
| 650 | _aPOSTEL PROPERTIES LTD V GREENWELL | ||
| 650 | _aRENT REVIEWS | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT REVIEWS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c37536 _d37536 |
||