If L’s consent is needed for T to assign (or sublet) then such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld (s19(1) LTA 1927. Moreover, LTA 1988 says that L must give written notice to T of its decision to grant or refuse consent, within a ‘reasonable time’. 


The decision as to what is a ‘reasonable time’ for L to respond will vary with the facts of the case. The original rule of thumb when advising Ts was that they were unlikely to be able to threaten L with proceedings (or go ahead with the transaction) before the expiry of one month, assuming it was a straightforward application. But, in the last decade the trend of cases has been to give L an ever decreasing amount of time in which to respond. 


In Go West [2003] it was said that reasonable time must be measured in weeks rather than days, but even in complicated cases it should be measured in weeks rather than months. In NCR [2005] it was said: 


‘In the absence of special exceptional circumstances a period of less than three weeks, particularly in the holiday period, cannot in my view be categorised as inherently unreasonable for that process.’ 


The most extreme decision was Blockbuster [2003] where the High Court concluded that consent ought to have been given seven days from receipt of all information. However, that case involved information being fed to L over a period of time, and the application was effectively with L for some three weeks – which is in line with NCR [2005]. Needless to say, most Ls will take the view that three weeks is not a long period of time, especially if information is drip fed following an incomplete application. 


But, the end result of all of this is that the courts have shown an inclination to tighten up on what is a ‘reasonable time’, and three weeks would now seem to be the norm. [2010] 258 PLJ 3.