Give me a break: why break clauses matter
By Anna Ralston
The power is back with the landlords. After the dust has settled on two important Court of Appeal decisions relating to tenant’s break options, it is now the case that: unless there is an express apportionment clause, it will be difficult for a tenant to argue that it should be entitled to an apportioned refund for rents and other sums paid in advance of, but that relate to the period after, a break date (the broken period); and non-compliance with a mandatory requirement of a break clause (or any other option) will render a break notice invalid.
Last year saw two tenant-friendly decisions: first, there was Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas, where it was held that the landlord did have to repay an apportioned amount of rent and other sums that related to the broken period; and second, there was Siemens v Friends Life, where it was held that non-compliance with the strict requirements of a break option, in terms of the form of notice, did not render the break notice invalid…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Nabarro briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from The Lawyer
Analysis from The Lawyer
Nabarro senior partner and self-confessed “IT geek” Graham Stedman is heralding a major set of investments in technology ahead of the firm’s move to 125 London Wall this year.
Clients are more willing to bring claims against professional service providers but the risk to defendants is not as dramatic as it might seem