Burgerking Ltd v. Rachel Charitable Trust [2006] ScotCS CSOH_13 (24 January 2006)

Burgerking Ltd v. Rachel Charitable Trust [2006] ScotCS CSOH_13 (24 January 2006)

The landlord's refusal of consent was not unreasonable because the scale of the reverse premium was so large that it was likely to adversely affect the future rental value and capital value of the property, and a reasonable landlord might refuse consent on that basis. The tenant failed to discharge the onus of proving that consent was unreasonably withheld.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_13
Parties
Pursuer: Burgerking Ltd; Defender: Rachel Charitable Trust
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Lease Dispute / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Consent was not unreasonably withheld; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Lease Assignment and Subletting, Reasonableness of Withholding Consent, Reverse Premium, Market Rent Determination
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Lease Assignment and Subletting Reasonableness of Withholding Consent Reverse Premium Market Rent Determination

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burgerking Ltd

Pursuer

Rachel Charitable Trust

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Lease Dispute / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to subletting under the lease
  2. 2 Whether the scale and structure of the reverse premium justified refusal of consent
  3. 3 Whether the financial standing of the proposed subtenant justified refusal of consent

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's refusal of consent was not unreasonable because the scale of the reverse premium was so large that it was likely to adversely affect the future rental value and capital value of the property, and a reasonable landlord might refuse consent on that basis. The tenant failed to discharge the onus of proving that consent was unreasonably withheld.

Court Disposition

Consent was not unreasonably withheld; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Declarator refused; pursuer not entitled to sublet to Quids In on proposed terms.