[2004] EWHC 1333 (Ch), 8 June 2004. Claimant landlord S applied for a ruling that a clause restricting the use of a proposed extension to hotel premises on land leased by defendant tenant (M) was reasonable and could be inserted into a lease so as to vary it. S hadgranted a lease to M to build a hotel within a country park. The lease contained clauses restricting future development and construction works at the hotel. M sought permission to extend the hotel and after lengthy negotiations, S granted M a licence to commence building works subject to outcome of ruling. The court was asked to determine whether S's business interests were legitimate considerations when deciding whether the refusal of consent to building alterations was reasonable and if S should have sought compensatory payment under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s19(2) for any loss suffered. "International Drilling Fluids Ltd v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd" (ChD, [1986] Ch 513) and "Ashworth Frazer v Gloucester City Council" ([2001] UKHL 59, Abs64811) set out important principles relating to law of reasonableness. "Held": that where a tenant's use of a proposed building extension might have a detrimental effect on the landlord's business, the landlord could legitimately refuse consent for the insertion of a condition restricting the use of the extension into the lease. However as in this instance where the condition precluded the tenant from carrying on some of his existing business activities it went further than was reasonable in protecting the landlord's interests. View at www.courtservice.gov.uk.