Break options

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. For guidance regarding the Act’s impact on residential tenancies in England, see Practice Note: Renters' Rights Act 2025—key provisions.

General

A lease for a term of years may contain an option for one or both of the parties, to end the lease before the contractual expiry date. This is known as a break option or a break clause. The break may be exercisable:

  1. at any time after a fixed date (a 'rolling break')

  2. on one or more fixed dates, or

  3. on the happening of stated events

In practice, most leases expressly state 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 to the contrary, the break option is exercisable by the person in whom the term is for the time being legally vested. However, if it is expressed to be personal to the original tenant it will normally lapse on the first assignment as a matter

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 section 75A FA 2003 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