000			02156cad a22002295a 4500
001			L145801
008			081110e20081029xxk 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u145801
041	0		_aeng
110	2		_aUnited Kingdom Parliament _bHouse of Lords _93232
245	0	0	_aScottish and Newcastle Plc (original respondents and cross-applicants) v Raguz (original appellant and cross-respondent) _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] UKHL 65, 29 October 2008. In a victory for common sense, landlords will no longer need to serve notices in respect of an outstanding rent review, thereby removing an administrative headache. The appellant appealed against a decision (see L13384 and L137096) that the scope of the indemnity under the Land Registration Act 1925 S24 was not limited to payments that the assignor was legally entitled to make. The respondent cross-appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision that certain rent review increases were irrecoverable because of a failure to serve S17 notices under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. At issue was when an increase under a rent review was to be treated as having become due, and whether the implied covenant to indemnify in S24 of the 1925 Act was limited to payments that the assignor was legally liable to make. Held: appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed. There is no need to serve default notices on former tenants for any unascertained uplift in rent which may become due on an outstanding rent review. A notice is only needed once the review has been determined and the current tenant does not pay the backdated arrears.
590			_aKA NTK
650	2	4	_aSCOTTISH AND NEWCASTLE PLC V RAGUZ
650	2	4	_aLANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS) ACT 1995 S17
650	2	4	_aLAND REGISTRATION ACT 1925 S24
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES-BREACHING BUSINESS TENANCIES
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm _zView the judgement free of charge at www.publications.parliament.uk...
942			_n0
999			_c80940 _d80940