000			01298cab a2200193 4500
001			L129634
008			050506n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129634
041			_aeng
100			_aMurdoch, Sandi
245		2	_aA generous decision
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0516) 23 April 2005, 143(1)
520			_aHighlights the fact that rent review clauses are more complicated than they may appear with complex provisions for the service of notices. This point is illustrated by the case "Lancecrest Ltd v Asiwaju" (L129536). The appellant tenant (A) held a 12 year lease with a clause providing for a rent review at the end of each four year period. The landlord (L) did not send a trigger notice until a year after the review date. The court considered that time was not of the essence and the trigger notice was valid even though the clause required a notice to be served before the review date. The letter sent by the tenant was held to be a valid counter-notice in view that it challenged L's proposed rent.
590			_aIKA190505
650			_aLANCECREST LTD V GANIYU ASIWAJU
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES-RENT REVIEW (BUSINESS TENANCIES)
942			_n0
999			_c75192 _d75192