Property management company dealt reasonably in denying dog request

When a County Court Judge granted an injunction requiring lessees to remove their dog, Vinnie, a Yorkshire/Maltese cross-breed, from premises,

the Judge was right to decide that the property management company had complied with its implied obligation to deal reasonably with a request by the defendants to be allowed to keep their dog in the property, notwithstanding a covenant in their lease preventing them doing so without the written consent of the management company. That was the finding by the High Court on appeal in the case of Victory Place Management Company Ltd v Kuehn and another.

Victory Place Management Company (VPMC) is the management company for Victory Place which is a gated residential development in Limehouse, London, comprising 146 flats or maisonettes held on long leases, one of which the defendants hold. The members of VPMC are the lessees at Victory Place, who in turn elect its board of directors. The defendants entered into a covenant which said: “No dog bird cat or other animal or reptile shall be kept in the [Property] without the written consent of [VPMC]".

On appeal, the question was asked whether the Judge was wrong not to hold that VPMC was in breach of its implied obligation to deal reasonably with the defendants to be allowed to keep their dog in the property. Was the "no dogs" save in special circumstances policy pursued by VPMC an illegitimate predetermination to reach a particular decision, or a legitimate predisposition towards a particular point of view? The court decided that the policy simply represented what it was, namely one important consideration that the board of VPMC would take into account in every case where a lessee sought permission to keep a pet at Victory Place. Had the defendants been able to show special circumstances, such as a real medical reason for keeping a dog, the decision by VPMC might have been different, but they did not in the event avail themselves of that opportunity.

Accordingly the Judge reached the right conclusion in this case. The challenge to VPMC’s decision-making process in deciding whether to give the defendants written consent to keep Vinnie at the Property under the Covenant, failed, and the appeal was dismissed.