Speeding up on assignment of a lease
Tick followed tock followed tick… or so the Guinness advert goes. And for a tenant, the waiting period between applying for a landlord’s consent to a dealing and receiving their response can often be an exercise in patience. Most commercial leases contain provisions controlling dealings that generally confirm that a tenant cannot assign or underlet a lease without landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Some leases go further than this and provide that such consent may also not be unreasonably delayed; however, even where the lease does not specifically contain this provision, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 may oblige the landlord to give consent within a reasonable time, unless it is reasonable not to give consent. The question therefore arises as to what actually is a reasonable time.
The act only applies where a tenant makes a written application for consent that is served on a landlord. Therefore, in order to set the clock running, the tenant must ensure that the provisions of the act and any relevant provisions in the lease are complied with. In the recent case of E.ON UK plc v Gilesports Ltd, it was confirmed that an application made by email was sufficient to satisfy the requirement in the act for a written application; however, it transpired in this case that service by email was not sufficient and so the tenant’s notice had been invalidly served. The act confirms that an application will be validly served if done so in a manner provided for in the lease (or if the tenancy is silent, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927). Most leases make provision for service of notice, and such provisions often incorporate the provisions as to service of notices contained in section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. That section confirms that a notice will be sufficiently served if it is left at, or sent by registered post to, the last known place of business of the landlord…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
The Court of Appeal has upheld a summary judgment on an application for a declaration of non-infringement of patent.
The design in issue in Cezar v OHIM was for a skirting board duct.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.