Break options and notices

A lease may include an option for one or both parties to end the lease before the contractual expiry date. This is known as a break option or break clause.

Time is of the essence in respect of all steps to be taken in exercise of a break option, unless the lease expressly states to the contrary.

See Practice Notes: Break clauses and notices—service and Break clauses and notices—exercising breaks and conditions precedent.

Who may exercise the break?

In practice, most leases will provide whether the break is exercisable by the landlord or the tenant, or if the right is mutual to both parties.

In the case of a tenant, unless there is any indication in the lease to the contrary, the break option will be exercisable by the party in whom the term is for the time being legally vested.

For Precedents, see: Tenant's break notice and Landlord's notice to break whole of fixed term.

When may the break clause be exercised?

The break option may be exercisable:

•
on one or more fixed dates
•
at 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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Property Disputes weekly highlights—29 May 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: High Court decisions that a landlord is not entitled to recover insurance rent corresponding to commission rebates, mortgage rights in the context of the doctrine of marshalling in a sale of land dispute, granting an injunction renewal against unauthorised encampments, granting injunctive relief to restrain unlawful protests and guidance on third party rights in the context of section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. It also includes a Court of Appeal judgment concerning the scope of an agricultural exemption from business rates for buildings used for packaging eggs, and an Upper Tribunal decision concerning modification of a restrictive covenant.

MHCLG clarifies position on roof gardens as storeys

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has issued an updated notice clarifying its position following the First-tier Tribunal’s decision on 3 July 2024, in Smoke House & Curing House, 18 Remus Road, London E3 2NF: LON/00BG/HYI/2023/0024. MHCLG acknowledges the need for legislative clarity and is consulting the Building Safety Regulator and other stakeholders on a proposal to amend the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/275, to confirm that roof gardens should not be classified as a storey when determining whether a building is a higher-risk building under section 120D of the Building Act 1984 (BA 1984) and section 65 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022). In the interim, MHCLG maintains that roof gardens are not considered storeys for these purposes, and advises the sector and regulatory bodies to continue following current guidance.

Supreme Court affirms developer’s right to bring negligence, DPA 1972 and contribution claims for repair costs against structural engineer (URS v BDW)

Construction analysis: This is the latest instalment in a series of decisions arising out of claims by a developer (BDW) against its structural engineer (URS) in respect of structural defects in two residential developments, where the repair works were carried out at a time when it no longer had any proprietary interest in the developments and no claims had been intimated by the any third parties. In its much-anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Technology and Construction Court and the Court of Appeal, holding that: (i) the repair costs fell within URS’s scope of duty and were not too remote; (ii) the retrospectively extended limitation period in section 135(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022 meant that there was no relevant time bar at the time of the repair works; (iii) URS owed a duty under section 1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) to BDW as the developer; (iv) BDW was entitled to claim a contribution from URS when it had paid compensation (in kind) by carrying out the repairs. However, the Supreme Court refrained from considering the principles on the accrual of a tortious claim and preferred to leave that question to a future case. Written by Mathias Cheung, barrister at Atkin Chambers.

Third party rights—welcome guidance from the high court

Construction analysis: There is a ‘a dearth of case law’on section 1(1) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999), as observed by Lenon KC, the judge in the case of HNW Lending Ltd v Lawrence. While an accurate assessment, the judge would have been well within his rights to add (but didn’t) that the dearth of caselaw extends to the entire Act, not just C(RTP)A 1999, s 1(1). This is surprising given the rising prevalence of reliance on C(RTP)A 1999 in commercial contracts (and perhaps most frequently, construction contracts) since its introduction in 1999. Written by Kevin Henderson, associate at BCLP.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News