000			01251cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS49993
008			090401t1993 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u73565
041			_aeng
245			_aWoolwich Property Services Ltd v Capital Land Holdings Ltd
260			_c1993
350			_a0
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v1993 66 PCR 378-392(8)
520			_aChD 16 November 1992. A lease contained detailed rent review proposals under which W as landlord served a notice to increase the rent. C had a month to serve a counternotice seeking an independent experts opinion. A letter was issued but not replied to so a second was issued after the month. W claimed that the first notice had not been valid. Held that the notice was valid as it responded to W`s trigger notice and was sent by recorded delivery with a request to acknowledge. Altough it did not mention that they wished the dispute to be referred to an independent expert the lease should have been consulted to determine the course of action.
650			_aCOUNTER NOTICE
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
650			_aTRIGGER NOTICES
650			_aVALIDITY
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c46482 _d46482