Property Law Library
Boundaries and adverse possession
Deeds, plans and boundary features
Adverse possession and Pye v Graham
Land Registration Act 2002
Acknowledgement of title
Trees and hedges
Business lease renewal
Does the Act apply?
Section 25 notices
Section 26 requests
New lease terms
Easements on renewal
Insolvency of landlord
Registration of claim
Electronic Communications Code
Co-ownership and estoppel
Orders for sale
Legal and beneficial ownership
Pallant v Morgan
Yeomans Row v Cobbe
Yeomans and s2 of 1989 Act
Assurance and reliance - Thorner
Laches and estoppel
Satisfying the equity
Construing rights of way
Extent of grant
Implied and s62
Increasing the burden
Parking and mooring
Repair to right of way
Right to light
Excluding the right
Types of easement
Landlord and tenant (general)
Material compliance and breaches
Repayment of rent
Chattels and fixtures
Change of use
Construction of lease terms
Schedules and notices
Standard of repair
Damages and s18 cap
Extent of the demise
Section 146 notices
Settlement and discontinuance
Goods left on the premises
L & T (Covenants) Act 1995
Notices - service
Presumption of reality
Time of essence
Rent review notices
Restraint of trade
Service charges and insurance (general)
Subletting, sharing possession or occupation
Surrender by operation of law
Tenancy at will
Terms of the transfer
Ground rent notices
Right to manage
Manager under 1987 Act
Right of first refusal
Service and administration charges and insurance
Construction of the lease
Service charge demands
Summary of leaseholder's rights
The 18-month rule
Consultation of tenants
Compromise of service charge dispute
Transfer to First-tier Tribunal
Variation of lease terms
Mobile homes and caravans
Negligence and loans
Limitation and shortfall
Counterclaim and set-off
Time to sell
Duties on sale
Solicitor's breach of trust and negligence
Tenants of mortgagees
Nuisance and trespass
Abating the nuisance
Damages - account of profits
Defects in neighbouring property
Party walls (article)
Party Wall (cases)
Change of use
Damages in lieu of injunction
Protection from Eviction Act
Human Rights Act defences
Orders for possession
Defective Premises Act
Failure to complete
Gifts of land
Guarantees and indemnities
Misrepresentation and answers to enquiries
Notice to complete
Writing - s2 of 1989 Act
Public access to land
Right to roam
Town and village greens
The main cases
Cancellation of registration
User as of right
Family Intervention Tenancies
Injunctions under 1996 Act
Housing disrepair claims
Defective Premises Act
Liability of landlord
Damages for disrepair
Costs in disrepair cases
Notice to quit
Proceeds of crime
Rent Act 1977
Right to buy
Tenant's notice to quit
Benefit of covenants
Consent to development
Interpretation - breach
Modification and discharge
Variation under s610 of 1985 Act
John de Waal
Tactics and strategy at mediation
Mixed Use Properties
Boundaries and party walls.
Commons and village greens.
Conveyancing and property development.
Long leases and enfranchisement.
Cases and articles
Civil and Tribunal procedure
Neighbour and boundary disputes
Residential landlord and tenant
Statutes and SI's
Property Law Library
Landlord and tenant (general)
Change of use
There are many cases on the subject the most important of which is probably International
Drilling Fluids Ltd v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd
 EWCA Civ 11. The main principles as stated in that case are as follows (Balcombe J at 325):
1. The purpose of a covenant against assignment without the consent of the landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld is to protect the lessor from having his premises used or occupied in an undesirable way or by an undesirable tenant or assignee.
2. As a corollary .. a landlord is not entitled to refuse his consent to an assignment on grounds which have nothing to do with the relationship of landlord and tenant in regard to the subject matter of the lease.
3. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the conclusions which led him to refuse consent were justified, if they were conclusions which might be reached by a reasonable man in the circumstances.
4. If may be reasonable for the landlord to refuse his consent for an assignment on the ground of the purpose for which the proposed assignee intends to use the premises, even though that purpose is not forbidden by the lease.
5. There is a divergence of authority on the question, in considering whether the landlord’s refusal of consent is reasonable, whether it is permissible to have regard to the consequences to the tenant if consent to the proposed assignment is withheld … A proper reconciliation of the … [authorities] can be achieved by saying that while a landlord need usually only consider his own relevant interest, there may be cases where there is such a disproportion between the benefit to the landlord and the detriment to the tenant if the landlord withholds his consent to an assignment, that it is unreasonable for the landlord to refuse consent.
6. Subject to the propositions set out above, it is, in each case a question of fact, depending on all the circumstances, whether consent is being unreasonably withheld.
At the time of
the onus of proof was on the tenant. He had to prove that the consent had been unreasonably withheld. However, the position has been reversed by s1(6)(c) of the 1988 Act so that the burden is now on the landlord to prove that his refusal was reasonable (
Norwich v Shopmoor
 EWHC Ch 368).
Breach of covenant as reason for refusal
Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council (No.2)
 UKHL 59
Landlords often think that they can refuse to give consent to an assignment on the ground that the intended use by the assignee would be a breach of covenant. They used to be wrong. The view taken by the courts was that as the landlord will have the same rights against the assignee as he has against the tenant he would not be prejudiced (
Killick v Second Covent Garden Property Co. Ltd
 2 All ER 237, CA). However, in this case the House of Lords overruled
and held that a refusal in these circumstances is not automatically unreasonable. Instead one must ask what the reasonable landlord would do in the particular circumstances of the case. The court cannot and should not formulate strict rules as to how a landlord should exercise his power of refusal.
Original tenant still liable
The Royal Bank of Scotland v Victoria Street (No. 3) Limited
 EWHC 3052 (Ch)
A landlord can object to the covenant strength of the assignee where the landlord is concerned in a practical way about the payment of rent and the performance and observance of the covenants, even where the landlord has the benefit of the original tenant’s covenant.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (T) is the tenant of office premises in London. Victoria Street (No3) Ltd (L) is the landlord. The lease contains a covenant on the part of T:
“Not to assign the demised premises or underlet or part with the possession of the demised premises or any part thereof or of this lease without the written consent of the landlord such consent however not to be unreasonably withheld in the case of a
respectable and responsible
assignee or sub-tenant Provided that the Landlord may require the proposed assignee to enter into direct covenants with the Landlord to perform and to preserve all covenants and conditions herein contained and on the Tenant’s part to be performed and observed.”
T applied for consent to assign to a company that had been incorporated two months previously. One week later, consent was refused by L on the basis that the proposed assignee was (by virtue of its recent incorporation) not a “respectable and responsible assignee”.
T applied to the High Court for a declaration that L had unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of the lease.
Morgan J held that the reasons L put forward for refusing consent to the proposed assignment were ones that a reasonable landlord might put forward. A landlord considering those stated reasons would have been acting reasonably by refusing consent, even taking into account the on-going liability of T as original tenant.
Morgan J at para 36:
"… a landlord can object to the covenant strength of the assignee where the landlord is concerned in a practical way about the payment of rent and the performance and observance of the covenants,
even where the landlord has the benefit of the original tenant’s covenant.
It seems to me that there ought not to be any rule of law on this question, which is essentially a question of fact, where the arguments as to the facts I have already set out point to the conclusion that a reasonable landlord can be concerned about the practical consequences of the tenant in possession not being respectable and responsible. … on the facts of this case the actual reasons which led this landlord to refuse consent were reasons that a reasonable landlord could properly put forward for withholding consent."
Reasons for refusing consent
Two good, one bad
No 1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd
 EWCA 250 (Civ)
The Court of Appeal considered whether landlord’s consent to assign had been unreasonably withheld where two of the grounds for refusal were reasonable, but a third had been held not to be. Answer: No. The question is whether the decision to refuse was reasonable; not whether all the reasons for the decision were reasonable.
East Tower Apartments Ltd (“ETAL”) is the tenant of 42 apartments in a 33-storey building. Under the terms of its leases, it was required to obtain its landlord’s prior written consent to any assignment, such consent not to be unreasonably refused.
Section 1(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 imposes a statutory duty on a landlord, on application being made to it for consent, within a reasonable time:
To give consent unless it is unreasonable to do so, and
To serve on the tenant
“a notice of [its] decision whether or not to give consent”
, setting out any conditions for the grant of the consent, or the reasons for refusing it.
Section 1(4) adds that the landlord’s statutory duty is not satisfied if consent is given subject to an unreasonable condition. If the duty is breached and gives rise to loss, it is actionable by way of a claim for breach of statutory duty.
ETAL applied to assign some of the leases and the landlord imposed three conditions on the grant of consent, namely that:
The tenant pays a fee of £1,600+VAT for the grant of the licence to assign (which included the inspection fee of a surveyor of £350 + VAT);
Inspection by the landlord’s surveyor, to establish whether ETAL was in breach of covenant, be carried out; and
A bank reference for the proposed assignee be provided, so that its covenant strength could be assessed.
The tenant disputed the reasonableness of all three conditions and issued proceedings for declarations to that effect.
The question before the Court of Appeal was whether two good reasons for refusing consent to assign could be – and were - vitiated by the one bad reason.
The judge held that all three conditions were unreasonable, and that the landlord had therefore breached its statutory duty by unreasonably withholding consent.
Decision on Appeal to the High Court
Henderson J held that the first condition was unreasonable and the second and third were reasonable, but that: “the bad reason vitiated the two good ones, with the consequence that West India Quay's success on those two matters is not enough to render the refusal of consent reasonable”.
Decision on Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lewison LJ, concluded that the refusal of consent was reasonable;
“the question is whether the decision to refuse was reasonable; not whether all the reasons for the decision were reasonable”
in other words “if the decision would have been the same without reliance on the bad reason, then the decision (looked at overall) is good”.
In reaching that conclusion, Lewison LJ considered the support from three cases:
British Bakeries (Midlands) Ltd v Michael Testler & Co Ltd
 1 EGLR 64 where it was common ground between counsel that “If a landlord has a good reason and a bad reason for withholding consent, consent may nevertheless have been reasonably withheld if the good reason is a sufficient reason and is not otherwise vitiated by the bad reason”
BRS Northern Ltd v Templeheights Ltd
 2 EGLR 182, in which Neuberger J held, in relation to reasons for refusing consent to assign, that “it may be clear that the bad reason is by far the most important reason, and that the purportedly good reasons were merely makeweights; or it may be that the existence of the bad reason infects or vitiates what would otherwise, in the absence of the bad reason, be a good reason” and
Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc
 UKSC 71, in which Lord Sumption expressed the test as
“one of causation”.
Lewison LJ himself formulated that test as:
“Would the landlord still have refused consent on the reasonable grounds, if it had not put forward the unreasonable ground?”
In ETAL’s case, there was no evidence supporting the conclusion that the demand for an excessive licence fee, which was the bad reason, was the most important reason for the landlord having refused consent to the assignment and had therefore caused the landlord to refuse consent. Nor could it realistically be said that the bad reason had vitiated or infected the good reasons. The bad and the good reasons were freestanding; there was no connection between them. Lewison LJ:
“Where, as here, the reasons were free-standing reasons each of which had causative effect, and two of them were reasonable, the decision itself was reasonable.”
Back to top
If you would like to subscribe to the full monthly update please click below.
From £207 + VAT (1 year)
(Free for charities and students)
PropertyLawUK.net Ltd | Co. : 8439359 | Reg Office : 3 Shelbourne Close, Pinner, Middlesex HA5 3AF