Image from Google Jackets

Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and another

Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; [2003] 7 EG 136 (CS) (1) | Weekly Law Reports ; [2003] 2 986-1006(20)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: [2003] EWCA Civ 17, 31 January 2003. The appellant (G) was the tenant and the respondents (S) were the landlords of premises in London. The lease contained a clause not to assign without the landlords' written consent which should not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. G wished to assign and sought S's consent in March 2001. S refused. In July 2001 G brought proceedings for a declaration that consent was unreasonably withheld. Judgment was in favour of the landlords. The judge found that both parties had treated the tenant's request for consent as continuing and took the view that no breach of duty had taken place as of July 2001. Both parties appealed. CA held that S was in statutory breach in refusing to give consent to assign. G's appeal allowed. S's cross-appeal allowed.

[2003] EWCA Civ 17, 31 January 2003. The appellant (G) was the tenant and the respondents (S) were the landlords of premises in London. The lease contained a clause not to assign without the landlords' written consent which should not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. G wished to assign and sought S's consent in March 2001. S refused. In July 2001 G brought proceedings for a declaration that consent was unreasonably withheld. Judgment was in favour of the landlords. The judge found that both parties had treated the tenant's request for consent as continuing and took the view that no breach of duty had taken place as of July 2001. Both parties appealed. CA held that S was in statutory breach in refusing to give consent to assign. G's appeal allowed. S's cross-appeal allowed.