{"id":223730,"date":"2020-01-01T13:15:57","date_gmt":"2020-01-01T07:45:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=223730"},"modified":"2020-01-03T12:34:38","modified_gmt":"2020-01-03T07:04:38","slug":"uk-sc-reasonableness-is-always-fact-specific-and-decisions-based-on-similar-factual-circumstances-are-not-decisive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/01\/uk-sc-reasonableness-is-always-fact-specific-and-decisions-based-on-similar-factual-circumstances-are-not-decisive\/","title":{"rendered":"UK SC | Reasonableness is always fact-specific and decisions based on similar factual circumstances are not decisive"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: <\/b>A Full Bench of Lord Briggs (President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Wilson and Lady Arden, JJ. allowed the appeal by a majority of three to two. Lord Briggs gives the main Judgment with which Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge agree. Lady Arden and Lord Wilson each give a dissenting Judgment with respect to withholding consent of the landlord.<\/p>\n

Hautford Ltd. was a tenant of a whole building in Soho under a 100-year lease. The lease is permitted that the whole property is to be used for residential purposes, however, at the time when it was granted in 1986 only the top two floors were used for residential purposes. Around 2013 the tenant developed other floors of the building into residential flats and then sought planning permission for the change of use. The lease contained a provision that the tenant must obtain the landlord\u2019s consent not to be unreasonably withheld for any application of planning permission. The tenant sought consent from the landlord, Rotrust Nominees Ltd., which was ultimately refused. The landlord\u2019s ground for withholding consent were on the basis that by turning the whole building into residential use, the tenant could have a strong claim under the statute for enfranchisement meaning to compel the landlord to sell the freehold to the tenant.<\/p>\n

The High Court and the Court of Appeal both ruled that refusing consent based on the risk of enfranchisement was unreasonable when taking into account that the lease permitted use of the whole building for residential purposes.<\/p>\n

Lord Briggs delivered the majority opinion and remarked that the case was not one with complex disputed fact nor did it deal with complicated points of law. Rather it deals with one simple question: did the landlord act was reasonable or unreasonable.<\/p>\n

The Court summarised the established principle which is to be followed when assessing whether a party has acted reasonably:<\/p>\n