000			01466cab a2200301 4500
001			ABS52553
008			090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u84400
041			_aeng
245			_aZubaida v Hargreaves
260			_c1995
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1995) 9 EG 320-322(3)
520			_aCA 10 August 1994. The defendant, H, was appointed by the RICS as an expert to determine at rent review the rent payable for a restaurant. The landlord had submitted a claim for £50,000, while Z, the tenant, relying on a comparable, argued for retaining the rent at £15,000. H settled on £27,000. Z challenged this in the courts, claiming that H was negligent and relied on comparables other than restaurants. He also sought to adduce further evidence in that Z had subsequently taken another lease at a lower rent. Having lost at first instance, Z`s appeal was also dimissed, it being "held" to be insufficient in a negligence case to demonstrate that another expert would have arrived at a different conclusion.
650			_aCOMPARABLES
650			_aEXPERT DETERMINATION
650			_aINDEPENDENT EXPERTS
650			_aINEXACT SCIENCE
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
650			_aRESTAURANTS
650			_aRETAIL PROPERTY
650			_aValuation _96273
690			_aARBITRATION-CASE LAW
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c53043 _d53043