Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Oxfam v Earl & Ors

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
JudgeMr Curry
Judgment Date17 October 1996
Neutral CitationBT/3/1995
CourtLands Tribunal (Northern Ireland)
Date17 October 1996
- 1 -
LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COMPENSATION ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
BUSINESS TENANCIES ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
BT/3/1995
BETWEEN
OXFAM - APPLICANT
AND
N P R EARL
P R KENNEDY
F A ALEXANDER
K H MacKENZIE - RESPONDENTS
RE: 11 THE DIAMOND, COLERAINE
Lands Tribunal - Mr Michael R Curry FRICS FSVA IRRV ACI.Arb
Coleraine - 26th October 1995
Belfast - 4th September 1996
Oxfam was the tenant of a shop at No 11 The Diamond, Coleraine, a secondary retail
location within the town. The Landlords had served a Notice to Determine under the
Business Tenancies Act (NI) 1964 ("the BTA") but did not oppose the grant of a new
tenancy. At the hearing the Tribunal was informed that the parties had agreed the extent of
the premises to be comprised in, and terms for, a new lease. The new lease would
commence on 1st May 1995 for a term of nine years with three yearly rent reviews.
The only issue remaining for the Tribunal was the rent. The value of the storage
accommodation was agreed so the main issues related to the retail accommodation only.
As no clear pattern emerged from the experts' analyses of all the comparables, that
narrowed to a question of which comparable or comparables should be preferred and what
adjustments, if any, should be made to reflect differences with the subject, bearing in mind
that some of these would be reflected in the zoning method adopted by both valuers.
- 2 -
Appearances
Patrick Good instructed by Harrison Leitch & Logan, appeared on behalf of the applicant
and called Gareth Mark Johnston ARICS, a qualified Chartered Surveyor with three years
experience of the commercial market in Northern Ireland, to give expert evidence.
Rex Anderson of Anderson & Co appeared on behalf of the Respondent and called George
Edward Andrew Tees, a Chartered Surveyor with many years experience and local
knowledge as an expert witness.
Matters not in dispute
The areas of the subject and the principal comparables at No 9 and No 6 The Diamond
were agreed and, adopting the approach of both experts, may be summarised as follows:
Shop No. Retail Area Storage Area
11 (Subject) 432.25 727.00
9 312.00 147.00
6 217.00 125.00
(Note: All areas are given in square feet and the retail areas are given In Terms of Zone A
("ITZA") ie the equivalent area if the shop comprised retail space in Zone A only.)
The parties agreed that areas defined as stores, in the expert evidence, should be
considered to be restricted to that use, because of the alterations which would be required
to adapt them to retail use.
As it was apparent that the valuers were relying, to differing extents, on hearsay evidence,
the parties agreed that the Tribunal admit the hearsay evidence but use its discretion as to
what weight should be attributed to it.
A Secondary Comparable - A Bank
Mr Johnston referred to a rent review of a bank at No 22, in August 1994, which he
analysed at £16.70 psf Zone A, but he did not consider that of any great assistance
because of differences in the use, the lease, the much larger scale of the property and the
office content on the upper floors. He attached little or no weight to this comparison, which
he supplied for background information only and really relied on No 9, the adjoining shop.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT