- Landlord’s refusal of consent for planning application increasing enfranchisement chances was unreasonable (Rotrust v Hautford)
- 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
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.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial