Iqbal& Ors v Thakrar & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 592 (28 April 2004)

Iqbal& Ors v Thakrar & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 592 (28 April 2004)

The landlord's refusal of consent to the proposed alterations was not unreasonable because the tenants' plans did not specify how structural issues (particularly regarding load-bearing walls and piers) would be addressed, leaving the landlord without sufficient information. Additionally, the lease did not demise the exterior main wall, so the landlord could refuse consent to alterations affecting that structure. The Recorder's contrary findings were incorrect in law and fact.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 592
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mohammed Iqbal; Claimant/respondent: Omar Farook Khan; Claimant/respondent: Mohammed Suleman Khan; Claimant/respondent: Mohammed Abdul Koriem Khan; Defendant/appellant: Rishi Thakrar; Defendant/appellant: Rupa Thakrar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; declarations discharged.
Legal Topics
Reasonableness of Withholding Consent, Structural Alterations Under Lease, Construction of Lease Terms
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Reasonableness of Withholding Consent Structural Alterations Under Lease Construction of Lease Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Iqbal

Claimant/respondent

Omar Farook Khan

Claimant/respondent

Mohammed Suleman Khan

Claimant/respondent

Mohammed Abdul Koriem Khan

Claimant/respondent

Rishi Thakrar

Defendant/appellant

Rupa Thakrar

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's refusal of consent to proposed structural alterations was unreasonable under the lease
  2. 2 Whether the demised premises included the exterior main wall (shop front)
  3. 3 Whether the landlord could refuse consent based on structural concerns and other grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's refusal of consent to the proposed alterations was not unreasonable because the tenants' plans did not specify how structural issues (particularly regarding load-bearing walls and piers) would be addressed, leaving the landlord without sufficient information. Additionally, the lease did not demise the exterior main wall, so the landlord could refuse consent to alterations affecting that structure. The Recorder's contrary findings were incorrect in law and fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; declarations discharged.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay appellants' costs, including costs below, up to 15th March.
  • Respondents to pay 75% of appellants' costs after 15th March.