Sargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited: ChD 8 Jun 2004

The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into account possible adverse effects on his own business interests and was therefore able to impose such conditions. Section 19(2) would not permit a landlord to allow for such considerations, but that section applied only to improvements. ‘ . . . there is no rule of law which precludes a landlord from relying under any circumstances on perceived damage to his trading interests in adjoining or neighbouring property as a ground for refusing consent to an assignment or change of use. Whether the particular perception is reasonable and whether, if reasonable, it justifies a refusal of consent or the imposition of a condition, is a question of fact in each case. ‘
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
[2004] EWHC 1333 (Ch), Times 06-Jul-2004, [2004] 3 EGLR 26, [2004] 4 All ER 662
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 19(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRe Hooker’s Settlement 1955
. .
CitedBrawley v Marczynski and Another CA 21-Oct-2002
The defendants appealed an award of costs on an indemnity basis against them in the favour of a legally aided claimant.
Held: Indemnity costs were often intended to indicate disapproval of a party’s behaviour in an action, and were awarded in . .
CitedInternational Drilling Fluids v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd CA 20-Nov-1985
Consent to Assignment Unreasonably Withheld
The landlord had refused a proposed assignment of office premises from a tenant who had occupied the premises as its permanent offices, to a tenant who proposed to use the premises as serviced offices – that is, for short-term rent to others. The . .
CitedHoulder Brothers and Co Ltd v Gibbs CA 1925
The landlord owned two adjoining commercial properties. The tenant of one proposed to assign the lease to the tenant of the adjoining property. The landlord refused consent on the ground that if the assignment went ahead, it was likely that the . .
CitedAshworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 3-Feb-2000
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after . .
CitedPimms 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 . .
CitedLambert v FW Woolworth and Co Ltd CA 1938
The court considered the reasonableness of the withholding of consent under the Act: ‘the landlords have unconditionally withheld their consent and made no condition as to payment of any compensation in respect of damage to or diminution in the . .
CitedIqbal v Thakrar CA 2004
The court considered a covenant in a lease not to alter the premises: ‘(1) The purpose of the [covenant] is to protect the landlord from the tenant effecting alterations and additions which damage the property interests of the landlord. (2) A . .
CitedStraudley Investments Limited v Mount Eden Land Limited CA 7-Oct-1996
In considering a refusal of consent to a sub-letting, two considerations in addition to those already esatblished in law applied: ‘(1) It will normally be reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent or impose a condition if this is necessary to . .
CitedWhiteminster Estates Ltd v Hodges Menswear Ltd 1974
The landlords carried on business as men’s outfitters. They also owned the shop next door which had been let as a cafe. The tenant applied for consent to assign the lease to another men’s outfitter, and the landlord refused on the ground that the . .
CitedWhiteminster Estates Ltd v Hodges Menswear Ltd 1974
The landlords carried on business as men’s outfitters. They also owned the shop next door which had been let as a cafe. The tenant applied for consent to assign the lease to another men’s outfitter, and the landlord refused on the ground that the . .
CitedSportoffer Ltd v Erewash Borough Council ChD 17-Mar-1999
The landlords were the local authority, and operated a municipal leisure centre. The tenants were the tenants of a squash club and applied for consent to a change of use to use as a leisure centre. The landlords objected on the ground that the . .
CitedNewton Abbot Co-operative Society Ltd v Williamson and Treadgold Ltd ChD 1952
A restrictive covenant taken for the protection of a business carried on on land owned by the covenantee was a covenant taken for the benefit of land; in other words a property interest. In this context the word ‘assign’ was apposite to an . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 March 2021; Ref: scu.198088