Tote Bookmakers Ltd v Development & Property Holding Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 1985 |
| Year | 1985 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
4 cases
-
Pittalis v Sherefettin
...a contingency (i.e. election). 17The next point taken by the plaintiffs is based upon the decision in Tote Bookmakers Ltd. v. Development & Property Holding Co.Ltd. (1985) 2 WLR, 603. In that case the provisions of the lease were very similar to those with which we are concerned here. The o......
-
DBX and another v DBZ
...be irrelevant. The arrangement suits both parties. The reason why that is so in case such as the present and in the Tote Bookmakers case [1985] Ch 261 is because the landlord is protected, if there is no arbitration, by his own assessment of the rent, as stated in his notice; and the tenant......
-
Roach v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...To that definition, I add the observation of Peter Gibson J in Tote Bookmakers Ltd. V. Development & Property Holding Co. Ltd. [1985] Ch 261 at 269 when, in the context of section 27 of the Arbitration Act 1950, he defined undue hardship as "hardship … not warranted by the circumstances......
-
Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd
...be irrelevant. The arrangement suits both parties. The reason why that is so in cases such as the present and in the Tote Bookmakers case [1985] Ch. 261 is because the landlord is protected, if there is no arbitration, by his own assessment of the rent as stated in his notice; and the tenan......