Not following an earlier decision Term of lease displaces presumption

Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Enterprises Ltd (CA TLR 2 October)

Where the ratio of an early decision of the court was directly applicable to the circumstances of the case before the court, but that decision had been wrongly distinguished in a later decision of the court, in principle it ought to be open to the court to apply the ratio of the earlier decision and to decline to follow the later decision. The Court of Appeal would not apply the general principle that it should follow the latter of two conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal if it concluded that the latter had been wrongly decided. Where a clause in a lease specifically provided: ‘If the lessee shall fail to serve a counter-notice within the period aforesaid [one month after receipt of the landlords rent notice] they shall be deemed to have agreed to pay the increased rent specified in the rent notice’, this was a contra-indication rebutting the presumption that time was not of the essence. Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd (1984) 49 P&CR 12 had been wrongly decided. Henry Smith’s Charity Trustees v AWADA Trading & Promotions Services Ltd (1984) 47 P&CR 607 was decisive of this case.