000			01362cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS52146
008			090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u63476
041			_aeng
245			_aCo-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc : Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society v Middleton Potts & Co : Broadgate Square plc v Lehman Brothers Ltd : Prudential Nominees Ltd v Greenham Trading Ltd
260			_c1995
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1995) 01 EG 111-116(6)
520			_aCA 17 November 1994. Four cases were heard together whose common factor was the effect of rent-free periods on the valuation of a property. At the first hearing it was held that the market value was to be the headline rent. At CA it was held that a clause which deems the market rent to be the headline rent obtainable after a rent-free period granted simply to disguise the fall in the rental value of the property is not in accordance with the basic purpose of a rent review clause. This therefore meant that a rent-free period should be taken into account when setting a rent at review. (Petition to appeal to HL refused - Herbert Smith Briefing June 1995.)
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
650			_aRENT-FREE PERIODS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c39452 _d39452