Q&As
The lease code recommends that tenant's resist break clauses which are conditional on vacant possession being given and instead suggests that the condition to give up ‘occupation’ is preferable. On one level while the general law suggests that giving up occupation is a lesser obligation than giving vacant possession, is there any authority on the point? For example, what is that lesser obligation? Is it just to leave the premises or do all chattels (and fixtures) have to be removed? What if some tools of the trade are left behind? Could it still require in practice that any significant alterations are removed? Could the lesser obligation actually create uncertainty as to what is required?
Published on: 26 February 2018
Compliance with break conditions
The first point to note is that tenant must comply strictly with any Requirements set down in the lease for the exercise of the break clause. In United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council the House of Lords made clear that in both the context of a break clause and a Rent Review provision, a landlord could insist upon strict compliance with any
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it,
sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.