Agreements for lease

An agreement for lease is required if the landlord and tenant cannot immediately enter into the lease itself, but need to know that the other party is contractually obliged to do so on the agreed terms at the relevant point in the future—see Q&A: When do you need an agreement for lease?

An agreement for the grant of a lease on a future date may be unconditional or it may be conditional on the satisfaction of one or more prior requirements.

For an unconditional agreement for lease, see Precedent: Agreement for lease—Unconditional.

Common situations where parties might use a conditional agreement for lease include:

  1. when major building works are to be carried out on the site (see Precedent: Agreement for lease—developer landlord to carry out major works)

  2. when some other obstacle to the grant of the lease needs to be dealt with (see Precedent: Agreement for lease—Conditional), such as:

    1. the landlord obtaining superior landlord's consent

    2. the landlord securing vacant possession of the premises from an existing tenant

    3. the tenant obtaining appropriate planning permission for change of use, or

    4. the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents