The landlords had received a request for a consent to a proposed assignment of the lease. They did not, in terms, refused consent, but had not given it notwithstanding a considerable passage of time and lengthy correspondence. The court was asked whether it had been unreasonably withheld.
Held: The landlords were unreasonably withholding their consent, and the tenants were entitled to proceed with the proposed assignment without the landlords’ consent.
Judges:
Judge Paul Bake, QC
Citations:
[1985] 1 EGLR 253
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 1999
Shopmoor’s predecessors demised premises for 150 years at a yearly rent of andpound;100 on payment of a premium. A covenant provided that the tenant was not to assign or sublet without the landlord’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or . .
Cited – Aubergine Enterprises Limited v Lakewood International Limited CA 26-Feb-2002
A sought confirmation that it had successfully rescinded a contract for the purchase of a leasehold property from L. Either party was to be able to rescind, if consent to the assignment had not obtained before three days before completion. There . .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 10-Apr-1997
The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
Held: The 1988 Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.221527