000			01557cam a2200193 4500
001			ABS67004
008			030821n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u123340
245			_aProcter and Gamble Technical Centres Ltd v Brixton plc
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2003] 31 EG 69-74(6)
520			_a[2002] EWHC 2835 (Ch), 19 December 2002. Claimant tenant (P) sought declaration as to validity of break clause notice in favour of the tenant. The original tenant Procter and Gamble Health and Beauty Care Ltd (H and B) assigned the lease to another Procter and Gamble company, the claimant tenant (P) in 1998. In 2000 a rent review memorandum was executed between defendant landlord (B) and the original tenant, but the details of each party were incorrect. In 2002, a solicitor acting on behalf of Procter and Gamble served a break notice in the name of the original tenant (H and B). The landlord denied that the break clause was valid on the grounds that: firstly, P did not have the desire to determine the lease; secondly P had not served the notice; and thirdly, the notice was invalid. HC dismissed the claim on the grounds that the notice was ineffective to determine the lease. "Lemmerbell Ltd and another v Britannia LAS Direct Ltd" (CA, X95637) applied.
590			_aABS
650			_aPROCTER AND GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTRES LTD V BRIXTON PLC
650			_aBREAK CLAUSES
650			_aLEMMERBELL LTD AND ANOTHER V BRITANNIA LAS DIRECT LTD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT REVIEWS-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c73271 _d73271