Skip to Main content

Search results for ''...


Sorry, there were no results

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

Newsletter Sign Up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

Newsletter Sign Up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

  • Overview

    The Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision that the landlord Sequent, then known as Rotrust, had unreasonably withheld consent to Hautford’s application for permission to make a planning application.

     

    The case concerns a terraced mixed use building in Brewer Street, Soho, let on a long lease.  Sequent is the landlord and Hautford is the tenant.  The Lease contains a tenant’s covenant not to apply for planning permission without the prior written consent of the landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

     

    The previous owner of the freehold refused consent for Hautford to apply for planning permission to change the use of the first and second floors of the building to residential use where such use was already permitted under the Lease.  Rotrust continued to refuse consent. 

     

    The principle grounds for refusing consent were that such change of use would increase the prospect of Hautford making a successful enfranchisement claim under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the LRA”) and, in addition, such enfranchisement would damage Rotrust’s management of the Soho Estate. 

     

    At first instance, the trial judge held that such a refusal was unreasonable.  The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision and found that Rotrust was attempting to re-write the terms of the Lease that permitted residential use.  The Court of Appeal also concluded that estate management considerations arising on enfranchisement are sufficiently addressed in the relevant part of the LRA.

     

    However, the Supreme Court, by a majority of 3:2, concluded that the requirement to obtain consent prior to making a planning application was an additional safeguard to protect the landlord against the risk of enfranchisement notwithstanding the tenant was permitted to use the property for residential purposes under the terms of the Lease.

     

    Delivering powerful dissenting judgments, Lady Arden and Lord Wilson both supported the findings of the lower courts.  Lady Arden highlighted that in her view, the power to refuse consent to a planning application was not granted to enable the landlord to cut down the user clause.  Lord Wilson raised the point that the permitted user clause was a feature of the Lease which was reflected in the premium paid to the freeholder by the initial leaseholder for it and in the premiums paid for the later assignments of the lease.

     

    Partner Mark Steggles commented “The nature and force of the two dissenting judgments demonstrate why these proceedings were necessary and the closeness of the decision.   Whilst the Supreme Court’s decision ultimately provides clarity to the parties involved, the leading judgment leaves questions unanswered that suggest some of the issues raised in this case are likely to be revisited by others in the future.”   

     

    Tiffany Scott QC & Charlotte Black of Wilberforce Chambers acted for Hautford.  A link to the judgment can be found here:  https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0098-judgment.pdf

  • Related Services

    Dispute Resolution

    Our team of experienced and highly specialist lawyers includes experts in contractual, commercial and international disputes, insolvency, shareholders’, directors and partnership disputes, in disputes arising from construction/engineering projects and we also act for clients seeking to protect or defend intellectual property/IT rights.

    Property disputes including landlord & tenant and boundary disputes

    We represent clients in all forums including the High Court and County Court, Lands Tribunal, and the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).  All of our property specialists are members of the Property Litigation Association and we have strong working relationships with specialist surveyors and experts, as well as Chancery barristers. Above all, we recognise that the property world is a business in which personal relationships count and we fully address the human as well as the legal dimension of any problem.

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

Newsletter Sign Up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

^
Jargon Buster