Coles and Others v William Hill Organisation Ltd: ChD 18 Mar 1998

When agreeing an extension of an existing lease, the new lease by mistake included a break clause which had been intended by neither party. The tenant’s solicitors noticed the error in their client’s favour but did not mention it. The landlord only discovered the error much later, but applied for rectification.
Held: Rectification was ordered. There had been no intention to include the clause. The tenant’s solicitors should have brought the landlord’s attention to the error, but did not. Rectification of a lease was ordered after a unilateral mistake was shown on the inclusion of a break clause which was short of sharp practice.
Levy QC J
Gazette 18-Mar-1998, [1999] LandTR 14
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Cited – Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd, (Formerly Coopind UK Ltd) CA 4-Mar-1995
    NewTown_CooperCA1995
    The trial judge had dismissed a claim for rectification on the basis that the defendant hoped and suspected, but did not know, of the relevant mistake by the plaintiff.
    Held: Rectification was ordered because the defendant had sought to . .
    Times 04-Mar-95, Independent 15-Mar-95, [1995] 2 All ER 929, [1995] Ch 259, [1995] 26 EG 129

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.79271