What we found

When we examined the landlord’s proposal, the problems weren’t isolated. They ran through every element of how it had been constructed. The lettable area was overstated, capturing space our client wasn’t actually leasing. The comparable evidence reached beyond the LGA the lease permitted, drawing on properties with no genuine resemblance to our client’s facility, among them buildings significantly larger than theirs and one with a gantry crane, a specialist provision that attracted a materially different market rate.

Sitting beneath all of this were two further factors the landlord had chosen not to raise: above-market outgoings our client was already paying, which directly suppressed the net effective rent the landlord could justifiably propose, and market incentives the lease explicitly required to be included, which were
absent from their proposed increase.

As the only valuation firm working exclusively for the tenant, we provided advice from the moment
the notice arrived through to the formal determination — a process that took almost a year. The determining valuer provided their assessment in November 2025, identifying that the landlord’s proposal was indeed materially higher than what the lease and evidence supported.