ABSTRACT
Whilst it is usual for the parties to a new lease to agree on an upwards only rent review in the new lease, the courts, in the absence of a rent review provision in the existing lease, will invariably decide that the rent review provisions in the renewal lease will be both upwards and downwards (see Stylo Shoes Ltd v Manchester Royal Exchange [1967] EGD 743; Janes (Gowns) Ltd v Harlow Development Corp; Boots the Chemists Ltd v Pinkland Ltd; Amarjee v Barrowfen Properties Ltd; Forbuoys plc v Newport Borough Council). This approach was not taken in Blythewood Plant Hire Ltd v Spiers Ltd (In Receivership) [1992] 2 EGLR 103, where the court ordered an upwards only clause as the receiver of the landlord company was hoping to grant a new lease and then sell the reversion, and the court felt that an upwards or downwards clause would affect the receiver’s ability to do this. In Northern Electric plc v Addison, CA, the court refused to include a rent review clause in a 14-year renewal lease of an electricity substation as, in view of the low rent of £40 per annum, the cost of the review would be greater than the reviewed rent.
