The issue was whether the landlord could reasonably refuse consent to an assignment by a limited company (which could not enfranchise) to a private individual (who could after five years’ residence).
Held:
Megaw LJ said: ‘If one were asked, without having been taken into any legal authorities relating to the matter, whether or not, in the circumstances which I have outlined, it was unreasonable for the landlords to refuse their consent when the consequences of giving that consent and of the assignment being made were likely to be that they would be deprived of their freehold interest in the property in five years’ time, I find it very difficult to think that anyone would find it possible to say that the landlords’ refusal was unreasonable.’
Brown LJ said: ‘If there were no authorities I think, like Megaw LJ, that there could be no doubt that the landlords’ refusal here was entirely reasonable.’
Geoffrey Lane LJ added: ‘Now, what are the facts here? Mr Barnes concedes that the value of the landlords’ reversion is less if there is a possibility of any of the mews houses being enfranchised. There is clearly such a possibility, and accordingly the value of the landlords’ reversion is less. That being so, it would be a strange landlord indeed who gave his consent to the proposed assignments. The refusal of the landlords in the present circumstances was eminently reasonable . . ‘
Judges:
Megaw LJ , Brown LJ , Geoffrey Lane LJ
Citations:
[1977] QB 506
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sequent Nominees Ltd (Formerly Rotrust Nominees Ltd) v Hautford Ltd SC 30-Oct-2019
The tenant promised in the lease not to apply for any planning permission without the consent of the landlord, not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant wished to apply for planning permission for a change of use of part of the demised premises, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.676327
