000			01392cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS48076
008			090401t1993 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u64825
041			_aeng
245			_aRichurst Ltd v Pimenta and another
260			_c1993
350			_a0
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v(1993) 1 WLR 159-167(5)
520			_aChD 18 September 1992. P as tenants, held a 34-year lease on property in Brighton owned by R. Lease terms provided for rent review every five years if notice was given more than two quarters in advance of review date, and established conditions for arbitration in the event of dispute. R served notice out of the specified time which was duly signed in acknowledgement and returned. R`s summons for an extension of time to serve the notice was granted under the terms of the Arbitration Act 1950. P appealed. Held that the notice was invalid, that the signature of receipt did not constitute an agreement for extension and that arbitration provisions in the lease were not applicable.
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1950 S27
650			_aEXTENSION OF TIME
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
650			_aTIME OF THE ESSENCE
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c40386 _d40386