Break clauses – partitions and vacant possession

A break clause in a lease may only be exercised if any conditions attached to it have been satisfied. The clause will be strictly construed by the courts. This was demonstrated in the recent case of Riverside Park Ltd v NHS Property Services Limited in which the High Court analysed whether the tenant had complied with a condition in a break clause which required the tenant to give vacant possession of the premises on or before the break date.

When the lease was granted, the premises were open plan but, at the break date, a large amount of internal partitioning installed by a former tenant, had been left in place along with some kitchen units, floor coverings, window blinds and an intruder alarm.

The tenant argued that the items were fixtures which had been integrated into the premises but the court decided that on the particular facts all the items were chattels due to their limited attachment to the premises and that the existence of the partitioning substantially interfered with the landlord’s right to possession, meaning that vacant possession had not been given.

The court did highlight that although other previously tried cases can provide guidance in comparable circumstances, each case will turn on its own particular facts.

Due to the uncertainties arising out of the concept of vacant possession, tenants prefer break clauses which avoid this expression and favour provisions which require the tenant to give up occupation.

In fact, The Lease Code 2007, which is a voluntary code, provides that a break right should not be conditional upon vacant possession being given and that disputes about the state of the premises, or what has been removed or left behind, should not frustrate the tenant’s ability to break the lease. Either party will still be able to claim damages from the other in relation to any breach of covenant following termination of the lease.

This case is a reminder that if a break clause is subject to conditions, they must be satisfied. The tenant should check the terms of the lease and any licence for alterations.

Share

Anne Bridger

Solicitor, Commercial Property

Anne has extensive experience in property law, both residential and commercial. In recent years, she has specialised in commercial property, particularly landlord and tenant matters....

Solicitor, Commercial Property

Anne Bridger

Anne has extensive experience in property law, both residential and commercial. In recent years, she has specialised in commercial property, particularly landlord and tenant matters.

Her most memorable case involved the sale of Ashdown Forest which included the Five Hundred Acre Wood and Pooh Bridge!

Anne trained with a city firm and joined us here at Hart Brown in 2004.

Head Office

Resolution House
Riverview
Walnut Tree Close
Guildford
Surrey
GU1 4UX

Your Local Office

Guildford - 01483 887766
Cobham - 01932 576789
Cranleigh - 01483 887515
Godalming - 01483 887766
Woking - 01483 887766

Hart Brown Solicitors is the trading name of Hart Brown LLP, registered in England and Wales No. OC 425835 whose registered office is Resolution House, Riverview, Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, GU1 4UX and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) No. 658593. Members: N Maud, T Pearce, D Knapp, R Campbell and P Grimwood, Partners: J Crosby, L Harrhy, J Jupp, J Lamont, V McMurtrie, E Moore, S Osborne, S Powell, G Sanders and E Wiggins.

© Copyright Hart Brown 2019 - All Rights Reserved. VAT registration no. 211372705