A scheme had been approved by the court under the Act, conferring management powers on managers. They were to consider applications for permission to construct new buildings, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
Held: It was for the freeholder managers to show that his refusal of consent for a development is unreasonable. If the householder and managers found themselves in disagreement, it was for the court to stand in the manager’s shoes only for the narrow purpose of seeing whether, acting reasonably, their decision was one they could reasonably have reached.
Judges:
Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Citations:
Times 21-Jan-1994
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pimms Ltd v Tallow Chandlers Company CA 1964
The landlord had refused its consent to an assignment of the remaining term of a lease to a development company, which desired to acquire the lease because of its nuisance value, and to use its interest as a basis for inducing the landlord to enter . .
Cited – Shanly v Ward CA 1913
A tenant challenged his landlord’s refusal of consent to an assignment.
Held: The refusal was reasonable. The onus of proving that consent has been unreasonably withheld is on the tenant. It was not enough to show that other lessors might have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.80376