Image from Google Jackets

Landlord Protect Ltd v Dolman and Others

By: Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2007] 19 EG 154 (CS) (1)Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Summary: Considers whether it is unreasonable for freeholders to require personal guarantee as condition of consent or whether income from sublessees represents adequate security. L contended that D had unreasonably withheld their consent. "Held": The claim was dismissed. The freeholders were not sufficiently protected by the subleases as L had no assets other than the headlease. D had a right to a straightforward guarantee that rent would be paid when due. They had not acted unreasonably by rejecting a three-year limit on that guarantee as it would be needed outside that period.

Considers whether it is unreasonable for freeholders to require personal guarantee as condition of consent or whether income from sublessees represents adequate security. L contended that D had unreasonably withheld their consent. "Held": The claim was dismissed. The freeholders were not sufficiently protected by the subleases as L had no assets other than the headlease. D had a right to a straightforward guarantee that rent would be paid when due. They had not acted unreasonably by rejecting a three-year limit on that guarantee as it would be needed outside that period.