Lease surrenders

A surrender is a transfer by a tenant to its landlord. The lease 'merges' into the landlord's interest. Rent will cease accruing at the point of surrender, as will liability for the performance of covenants in the lease. However, in the absence of an express release, both parties remain liable for breaches arising prior to the surrender. A lease surrender requires mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant.

There are two types of surrender—express and implied (occurs by operation of law):

  1. express—which is achieved formally, in writing, usually by deed, although this is not always necessary, see Practice Note: Lease surrenders

  2. implied—this occurs when the unequivocal conduct of both parties is inconsistent with the continuation of the tenancy, see Practice Note: Surrender by operation of law (implied surrender)

Lease surrenders

Our Practice Notes in this topic provide both general guidance on lease surrenders and guidance on specific issues encountered in the course of a lease surrender, including guidance on:

  1. key aspects of lease surrenders, eg:

    1. an explanation of what constitutes a lease surrender

    2. the differences between an express surrender and a surrender

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