References: [1964] 2 QB 547
Coram: Danckwerts LJ
Ratio: 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 into a joint venture for the redevelopment of the property.
Held: The refusal was reasonable. Danckwerts LJ said: ‘it is not necessary for the landlords to prove that the conclusions which led them to refuse consent were justified, if they were conclusions which might be reached by a reasonable man in the circumstances.’
This case cites:
- Approved – Shanly v Ward CA ([1913] 29 TLR 714)
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 . . - Cited – In Re Town Investments Ltd Underlease ChD ([1954] 1 Ch 301)
The court considered a proposed underletting at a rent well below the current market rent, and in consideration of a substantial premium. It had been refused by the Landlord.
Held: The lessor had reasonably withheld consent. It was enough that . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Estates Governors of Alleyn’s College v Williams ChD (Times 21-Jan-94)
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 . . - Cited – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL (Times 12-Nov-01, House of Lords, Gazette 22-Nov-01, Bailii, [2001] UKHL 59, [2001] 1 WLR 2180)
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . . - Cited – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA (Times 03-Feb-00)
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 . . - Cited – Jeffrey Ian Sargeant, Carol Elizabeth Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 1333 (Ch), Times 06-Jul-04)
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 . . - Cited – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD ([2004] EWHC 2073 (Ch))
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 . . - Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2016] EWHC 2438 (Ch))
Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 10-Oct-16
Ref: 181855
The post Pimms Ltd v Tallow Chandlers Company; CA 1964 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.