HMV UK v. Propinvest Limited Partnership 
EWCA Civ 1708
The court usually may only give leave for an appeal against an
award of a rent review arbitrator if, on a question of law, the
decision is "obviously wrong" (Arbitration Act
1996,s.69(3)(c)(i)). Such an error of law should, by its nature, be
readily identifiable on a reading of the papers, but the history
revealed in HMV UK v. Propinvest Limited Partnership
 EWCA Civ 1708 suggests that experienced
Chancery judges do not always find it easy to recognise what is, or
is not, obvious in the rent review context.
In this case, there was an application for leave to appeal
against an award made in July2010. In December 2010, one chancery
judge on consideration of the papers, directed an oral hearing of
the application (to be heard together with the appeal, if leave was
granted). In April 2011, another chancery judge refused the
application for leave, after an oral hearing, but granted
permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In November 2011,the
Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal.
As Longmore LJ said (para. 44): "this case is not
therefore a particularly good advertisement for the arbitration
process". There was no "comparatively speedy
process giving rise to finality". The rent review was
delayed for well over a year by use of court procedures, and this
is not in accordance with the policy of the Act. The judges of the
chancery division are well able to act robustly where required and
I suggest that it should only be in exceptional cases that the
identification of an obvious error should require oral
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In October 2013 the High Court granted an extension of the one year limitation period in a defamation case where the applicant (B) argued that the reason for the delay was that he had been unaware of an allegedly defamatory publication.
The Court of Appeal recently had to consider whether a side letter, drafted in parallel to a binding contract, and whose purpose was to confirm the parties’ agreement to enter, at a later date, into a separate secondary agreement, was itself legally binding.
Currently, cases for values up to £3,000 must be raised under the Small Claims procedure, and cases for values between £3,001 and £5,000 must be raised under the Summary Cause procedure.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”