| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2011] All ER (D) 352 (Mar) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2011] EWHC 729 (Ch) |
| Court: | Chancery Division |
| Judge: | Norris J |
| Representation | John McGhee QC (instructed by Dundas & Wilson LLP) for the claimant. |
| Timothy Fancourt QC and Oliver Radley-Gardner (instructed by Norton Rose LLP) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 31 March 2011 |
Catchwords
Contract - Construction - Contractual term - Parties entering into contract for sub-sub-underlease of premises let by claimant company from third party - Parties intending clause in sub-sub-underlease to state rent payable by defendant after certain specified date - Relevant clause on its bare wording leading to defendant paying less rent than anticipated by claimant - Proper construction of clause - Meaning of relevant words - Whether relevant clause should be read as achieving effect contended for by claimant.
The Case
Contract Construction. The Chancery Division of the High Court ruled on the proper construction of a clause in a lease which, based on the bare wording of the clause in question, would result in the defendant tenant company paying the claimant landlord company less than envisaged by the parties.
Practice Areas
Lexis®Library
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
