000			01595cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS63199
008			000000n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u109559
245			_aStarmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd
260			_c2000
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2000] 46 EG 196-201(6)
520			_aChD 6 June 2000. By a lease dated 21 February 1984, the claimant tenant (C) held a lease of commercial premises from the defendant landlord (S). The rent review clause allowed for the landlord to serve a notice for increased rent, and this rent would be payable unless the tenant served a counternotice within one month. On 30 March 1999 C served a notice to increase the rent to £84,800. S served a counternotice on 16 June 1999, stating the rent should be £52,725. C claimed the counternotice was not served in time, and therefore the tenant had agreed to pay £84,800. S issued proceedings regarding the validity of the rent review. "Held" for S. Following the CA decision in "Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd", the tenant's counternotice was declared valid; time is not of the essence of a rent review clause, except in rare cases.
590			_aABS
650			_aCOUNTER NOTICE
650			_aSTARMARK ENTERPRISES V CPL DISTRIBUTION
650			_aRENT REVIEW CLAUSES
650			_aTIME NOT OF THE ESSENCE
650			_aTIME LIMITS
650			_aHENRY SMITHS CHARITY TRUSTEES V AWADA
650			_aMECCA LEISURE LTD V RENOWN INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT REVIEWS-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c65407 _d65407