The tenant applied for a licence to assign the lease under section 1. The landlord refused consent, but the parties continued to negotiate. The tenant argued that the landlord’s continuation of negotiations showed the earlier counter-notice to have been an unreasonable refusal.
Held: The letter of refusal brought to an end the landlord’s response. By continuing negotiations after it had been served, he demonstrated that it had not been given in a reasonable time, which was the time reasonably required to do the things necessary under the Act. The scheme envisaged one notice from the tenant, and one notice from the landlord. The landlord had not unequivocally withdrawn his notice, and the landlord had acted unreasonably. Following the 1988 Act, the landlord is restricted to the reasons which he has given for refusing his consent.
Pill, Potter LJJ, Munby J
Times 10-Feb-2003,  EWCA Civ 17,  2 WLR 896,  QB 1140
Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 1
England and Wales
Approved – 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 . .
Approved – Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd ChD 1-Apr-1998
The plaintiff was tenant of premises under a lease granted by the defendant’s predecessor in title. He vacated the premises in July 1996, and on 17 November 1997 wrote asking the defendant for a licence to sublet them to a pet shop business. The . .
Cited – Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss CA 1982
When considering whether to give consent to an assignment of a lease, the landlord need consider only his own interests.
Slade LJ said: ‘I find it rather more surprising that, when the landlords came subsequently to question the validity of . .
Cited – First Penthouse Limited/Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited/Fahad Al Tamimi First Penthouse Limited Varlet International Limited Ruth Gary Orbach Quallvile Limited Norval Holdings Limited ChD 14-Nov-2003
Several transactions had taken place with regard to a lease of a roof void, which was to be developed for penthouses. The lease had been charged to secure funding. The development did not proceed to schedule, and a s146 notice was served. It was . .
Cited – Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited ChD 25-Feb-2004
The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal.
Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, and was an act . .
Cited – Arundel Corporation v Khokher CA 9-Dec-2003
The tenant had served a notice to review the rent. The tenent delivered a counter notice personally be posting it through the letter box. The lease provided that the notice was to be served at the last known business address of the landlord. The . .
Cited – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2004
The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting.
Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.180710