A rent review clause requires the disregard of T’s improvements, and does so by incorporating section 34 of the 1954 Act. The improvements have in fact been carried out by X under the terms of a joint venture agreement with T. Can L claim that that these fall outside the disregard?
The answer given in Durley House Ltd v Earl Cadogan [2000] 1 EGLR 60 was “no”. But as Sandi Murdoch emphasised in Legal Notes, the question of T’s involvement is, in each case, one of degree: see
A wider survey of the problem posed by tenant’s improvements may be found in
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and data-led analysis
A rent review clause requires the disregard of T’s improvements, and does so by incorporating section 34 of the 1954 Act. The improvements have in fact been carried out by X under the terms of a joint venture agreement with T. Can L claim that that these fall outside the disregard?
The answer given in Durley House Ltd v Earl Cadogan [2000] 1 EGLR 60 was “no”. But as Sandi Murdoch emphasised in Legal Notes, the question of T’s involvement is, in each case, one of degree: see Disregarding works Estates Gazette 11 March 2000, p172.
A wider survey of the problem posed by tenant’s improvements may be found in Landlord’s double take Estates Gazette 25 March 2000, p142. Richard Cohen, of Berwin Leighton (now Berwin Leighton Paisner), points, inter alia, to a trap for the tenant where the rent review clause (possibly following the Law Society/RICS model) insists, for disregard purposes, that a voluntary improvement has to be carried out with the landlord’s consent should the lease so require.
