Vivienne Westwood Ltd v Conduit Street Development Ltd [2017] EWHC 350 (Ch) (27 February 2017)
There was no binding agreement on the rent review at £125,000 p.a.; the termination provision in the side letter is penal and unenforceable insofar as it imposes retrospective and prospective rent liability for any non-trivial breach.
- Citation
- [2017] EWHC 350 (Ch)
- Parties
- Claimant: Vivienne Westwood Limited; Defendant: Conduit Street Development Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 February 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Lease Dispute / High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Claimant succeeds on penalty issue; Defendant succeeds on rent review issue.
- Legal Topics
- Rent Review, Contractual Penalties, Lease Interpretation, Severance of Contract Terms
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vivienne Westwood Limited
Claimant
Conduit Street Development Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Lease Dispute / High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether payment and acceptance of rent at an increased rate constituted agreement on rent review
- 2 Whether the termination provision in the side letter is an unenforceable penalty
Ratio Decidendi
There was no binding agreement on the rent review at £125,000 p.a.; the termination provision in the side letter is penal and unenforceable insofar as it imposes retrospective and prospective rent liability for any non-trivial breach.
Court Disposition
Claimant succeeds on penalty issue; Defendant succeeds on rent review issue.
Orders
- Rent review not agreed at £125,000 p.a.; rent review determined at £232,500 p.a.
- Termination provision in side letter is penal and unenforceable as regards retrospective and prospective rent liability for breach.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment