|
T had built a pub on L’s land, at T’s expense; once the building was
completed, L was then granted a lease. Within the lease, ‘the demised
premises’ was defined as including the land and the building (ie the
pub). But, the rent review clause referred to ‘the site comprised in the
demised premises’.
The question then arose as to what that meant. Did
it mean (i) the site, excluding the pub, or (ii) the site including the pub
(ie ‘the demised premises’)? The trial judge and the CA both decided
that it meant the land, without the pub. The court took the view that if
the pub building was to be included then the rent review clause would
simply have referred to ‘the demised premises’, whereas the fact that it
referred to ‘the site comprised in the demised premises’ implied that it
should be site-only (ie the land excluding the pub).
This is another of those cases that is decided on its own facts but which
serves as an illustration of sloppy drafting within the legal profession.
Coors v Dow Properties [2007] EWCA Civ 255.
|
|
April 2007 |
