Landlord’s refusal of consent for planning application increasing enfranchisement chances was unreasonable (Rotrust v Hautford)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What had the County Court judge decided?
• What did the Court of Appeal decide?
• What were the legal principles involved?
• What of the case law?
• What was the interrelationship of clauses 3(11) and 3(19)?
• What about arguments about the proper management of the landlord’s estate?
• Case details

Article summary

Property analysis: The Court of Appeal confirmed that a landlord’s refusal to consent to the tenant making a planning application to change part of a property to residential use was unreasonable, despite the fact that it increased the tenant’s chances of being able to enfranchise. The analogous case law pre-dated the introduction of the enfranchisement legislation and the lease expressly authorized use of the whole property for residential purposes.