Rennie v Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd: ChD 7 Feb 2007

The parties had entered into an option agreement for development of land. The developer purported to exercise an option extendng the applicable period, but having accepted the funds, the land owner denied that it had been validly exercised.
Held: The notice was valid. Anyone reading it would understand it as the exercise of the option agreement. No specific form of words was required by the agreement. Though the deposit payable was paid late, this was only by a few hours, and time was not of the essence for this purpose.
Henderson J
[2007] EWHC 164 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNunes v Davies Laing and Dick Limited 1985
The court set out the test for a valid counter-notice: ‘namely that the counternotice should be in terms which are sufficiently clear to bring home to the ordinary landlord that the tenant is purporting to exercise his right . . ‘ . .
CitedLancecrest Limited v Dr Ganiyu Asiwaju CA 11-Feb-2005
Rent review clause – whether a notice served by a landlord (a ‘trigger notice’) purportedly implementing a rent review was valid, notwithstanding the fact that it was served late; and if the landlord’s trigger notice was valid, whether the tenant . .
CitedMannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .

Cited by:
CitedThe Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Ayres and Grew ChD 3-Apr-2007
The defendants argued that they were not liable as guarantors under an Authorised Guarantee Agreement for a lease when the assignee tenant had become insolvent.
Held: The guarantors were liable provided that the extent of the claim did not . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.248388