000			01318cab a2200313 4500
001			ABS52393
008			090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u75785
041			_aeng
245			_aMount Charlotte Investments plc v Prudential Assurance
260			_c1995
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1995) 10 EG 129-132(4)
520			_aChD 12 July 1994. An arbitrator, in determining a rent review, failed to follow his own instructions setting out what evidence of comparables would be taken as admissible. M, the tenant, objected and applied to the court for an extension of time and, under the Arbitration Act 1950 ss22 or 23, set aside or remit the award because of the arbitrator`s misconduct. Application granted, the court holding that there was misconduct, and the award set aside.
650			_aADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1950 S22
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1950 S23
650			_aARBITRATORS
650			_aCOMPARABLES
650			_aEXTENSION OF TIME
650			_aMISCONDUCT
650			_aMOUNT CHARLOTTE INVESTMENTS PLC V PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
650			_aRSC 73 R5
690			_aARBITRATION-CASE LAW
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c47671 _d47671