Aviva Investors Pensions Ltd v McDonald's Restaurant Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_9A (31 January 2014)

Aviva Investors Pensions Ltd v McDonald's Restaurant Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_9A (31 January 2014)

The defender acted reasonably in refusing consent, having obtained and relied on independent expert advice that the proposed development would adversely affect its business operations. There was no obligation to conduct a cost/benefit analysis or to weigh the landlord's interests, and the pursuer failed to prove that any reasonable tenant would have granted consent in the circumstances.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_9A
Parties
Pursuer: Aviva Investors Pensions Ltd; Defender: McDonald's Restaurants Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Lease Dispute / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Action dismissed; defender absolved from conclusions of the summons.
Legal Topics
Withholding of Consent, Reasonableness of Refusal, Leasehold Covenants, Expert Evidence, Parking and Access Rights
Landlord and Tenant Commercial Property Withholding of Consent Reasonableness of Refusal Leasehold Covenants Expert Evidence Parking and Access Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aviva Investors Pensions Ltd

Pursuer

McDonald's Restaurants Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Lease Dispute / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant (defender) unreasonably withheld consent for the landlord's (pursuer's) proposed development under the lease terms
  2. 2 Whether reliance on expert advice justified refusal of consent
  3. 3 Whether disproportionality of benefit and detriment required consent to be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The defender acted reasonably in refusing consent, having obtained and relied on independent expert advice that the proposed development would adversely affect its business operations. There was no obligation to conduct a cost/benefit analysis or to weigh the landlord's interests, and the pursuer failed to prove that any reasonable tenant would have granted consent in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; defender absolved from conclusions of the summons.