Claimants applying to landlord for consent to sublease premises — Landlord failing to grant consent — Whether landlord breaching statutory duty as defined in section 1(3) of Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 — Claim allowed
The claimant leased premises from the defendant landlord. The lease contained qualified covenants against, inter alia, assignment and subletting. The claimants applied to the defendant landlord for consent to sublet the upper floors to a third party. On the basis that, under section 1(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988, such consent could not be unreasonably withheld, the claimant allowed the third party into the premises under a three-month licence commencing in April 2002, and wrote to the defendant with details of the proposed changes. Between the commencement date and 28 May, the claimant supplied the defendant with further details of the proposals. On 28 May, the claimant wrote again, specifically requesting: (i) a licence to underlet; (ii) consent to the proposed change of use; and (iii) consent to proposed alterations. A copy of the plan was enclosed in the letter.
After some delay, the defendant replied with a request for further details, including a certificate detailing rent and service charges as specified in the lease. Both the certificate and a landlord’s reference were supplied in June. Thus, by the end of the three-month period the defendant had been supplied with all the necessary documents to enable it to consider the application for consent to underlet.
The defendant failed to grant permission. The third party tenants withdrew from the agreement and the claimant commenced proceedings on the basis that the defendant had failed to comply with its statutory duty to grant consent within a reasonable time. The defendant contended, inter alia, that it had not breached its statutory duty and put into issue the question as to when the statutory duty first applied.
Held: The claim was allowed.
Once the defendant had received all the necessary information, it had a duty to process the application with the necessary expediency. It had been entitled to request a certificate as defined in the lease. However, the certificate was only one means of supplying the necessary information; it could have been supplied by other means, such as a solicitor’s letter.
On that basis, the defendant had been in possession of sufficient information to enable it to activate its statutory duty on receipt of the letter of 28 May. Although, in addition, it had been entitled to request the certificate and the necessary references, it had failed to act with sufficient diligence in processing the application and in giving consent. On the evidence, a reasonable date for the giving of consent would have been 26 June. Because of its failure to give consent by that date, the defendant had caused the claimant to suffer loss.
Alexander Hill-Smith (instructed by Brookstreet Des Roches, of Whitney) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Dutton (instructed by Lovells) appeared for the defendant.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
