Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Mr. Stephen Hofmeyr QC (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) for the Claimants. Mr. Christopher Nugee QC (instructed by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the Defendants Hearing dates: 9,10,11 & 12 May 2005 ____________________
Sub-clauses (2) to (4) of the clause then went on to define an obligation on the part of the tenant to pay a rental penalty in respect of such exercise, and sub-clause (5) provided that the existence of the option should not affect the operation of the rent review provisions at the second review date.
He made an amendment (not material for present purposes) to Clause 2, and then, by a Rider C, added a new clause 3 in the following terms:
That letter was copied to Mr Bird and Mr Samuel and (on the evidence) likely to have been received by Mr Samuel on 31 st August (see transcript Day 1, p 75, line 9).
and making clear that he was still awaiting final approval from Provident Mutual.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.