The Historic Buildings of Monuments Commission for England v Isambard Estates Ltd [2005] EWHC 3847 (Ch) (16 June 2005)

The Historic Buildings of Monuments Commission for England v Isambard Estates Ltd [2005] EWHC 3847 (Ch) (16 June 2005)

The arbitrator was not obviously wrong in interpreting clause 32.1.10 to require building 1C to be valued at the same rate as buildings 1A and 1B without allowance for onerousness, and issue estoppel could not be relied upon as it was not raised before the arbitrator.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 3847 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Historic Buildings of Monuments Commission for England; Defendant: Isambard Estates Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal Arbitration Award / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Rent Review, Issue Estoppel, Lease Interpretation
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Property Law Rent Review Issue Estoppel Lease Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Historic Buildings of Monuments Commission for England

Claimant

Isambard Estates Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal Arbitration Award / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator was bound by issue estoppel to follow the previous arbitrator's construction of clause 32.1.10 of the lease
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator was obviously wrong in interpreting clause 32.1.10 to require building 1C to be valued at the same rate as buildings 1A and 1B without allowance for onerousness

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator was not obviously wrong in interpreting clause 32.1.10 to require building 1C to be valued at the same rate as buildings 1A and 1B without allowance for onerousness, and issue estoppel could not be relied upon as it was not raised before the arbitrator.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused