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?

read titleRead full title
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

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Vacant Possession definition
What does Vacant Possession mean?

Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing tenants or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised), and all goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that substantially prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial part of the property on or before completion.

Popular documents