Implied terms after Marks and Spencer

Table of contents

• Original news
• What were the main issues in the case?
• Why did the appellant consider it was due a refund?
• Why did the court reject the appellant’s argument about the implied term?
• Is the judgment helpful in clarifying the law and are there any remaining grey areas?
• The test of necessity
• Apportioned rent
• What lessons should practitioners draw from this case?
• How does the case fit in with other developments in this area?

Article summary

Property analysis: The Supreme Court’s judgment in Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd is set to be the leading authority on implied terms, break clauses and apportionment of rent payable in advance, says Kester Lees, of Falcon Chambers.