000			01435cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS65634
008			020703n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u118670
100			_aNorris, D.
245			_aAgainst the clock
260			_c2002
490			_aSolicitors' Journal _v146(19) 17 May 2002, 448-449(2)
520			_aDiscusses recent rulings with regard to rent clauses and in particular the deeming clause. Notes that two cases in 1984; Henry Smith's Charity Trustees v AWADA Trading & Promotional Services Ltd and Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd which drew contradictory rulings when the deeming clause was considered. This was intended to speed up the review process by making the parties follow a rigid timetable such as giving a tenant a month to chalenge a figure for a new rent. This question returned to the Court of Appeal in Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd. The CA decided that the lease meant what it said and if the tenant failed to challenge the landlord within the specified time the consequences were clear.
590			_aABS
650			_aSMITHS CHARITY TRUSTEES V AWADA TRADING & PROMOTIONAL SERVICES LTD
650			_aMECCA LEISURE LTD V RENOWN INVESTMENTS (HOLDINGS) LTD
650			_aDEEMING CLAUSE
650			_aSTARMARK ENTERPRISES LTD V CPL DISTRIBUTION LTD
650			_aRENT REVIEW
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
999			_c70670 _d70670