Lease surrenders

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):

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

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:

•
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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property News

DSIT launches consultation on legislative proposals for broadband rollout in leasehold flats

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has launched a consultation on legislative proposals to give residential leaseholders of flats in England and Wales a new statutory right to request a gigabit-capable broadband connection from their freeholder, who would be under a corresponding duty not to refuse such a request unreasonably. The government explains that high-speed digital infrastructure, a sector worth around £50bn, is increasingly essential for everyday life, supports transformation across public services and the wider economy, and is critical to productivity and the UK’s international competitiveness. Although about 89% of UK premises can now access a gigabit-capable connection, an estimated 1.2 million flats in England and Wales remain without such access and coverage for flats, particularly leasehold flats, lags behind that for other property types, creating a risk that occupants of flats are left behind as gigabit rollout continues.

HMLR updates Practice Guide 1

HM Land Registry (HMLR) has updated Practice Guide 1—First registrations. Section 5.1 has been amended to explain the actions that HMLR will take if an application for first registration does not appear to be in possession of all or part of the land included in the application.

Court of Appeal confirms SDLT anti-avoidance provisions trump connected companies market value rule exception (The Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In The Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal held that the distribution-related exception from the SDLT connected companies market value rule, found at section 54(4) of Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003), applied to prevent the market value rule in FA 2003, s 53 from operating on the land transaction in question. However, HMRC succeeded in its alternative argument under the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions contained at FA 2003, s 75A. The Court found that the scheme in question gave rise to a higher SDLT charge on the notional transaction than on the actual steps implemented, meaning FA 2003, s 75A was engaged and the imposition of a market value SDLT charge was ultimately upheld. The taxpayer’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

BPF opposes upward-only rent review ban in English Devolution Bill

The British Property Federation (BPF) has stated its opposition to provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would ban upward-only rent reviews in all new commercial tenancies. The Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Lords this week and will be discussed in Committee by Peers in January 2026. The BPF argues the ban was introduced without consultation or evidence base and does not address the stated problem of struggling high streets with vacant shop units. The organisation contends the measure risks reducing investment predictability for pension funds and insurance companies, potentially hampering commercial property investment and development activity. The BPF is working with Peers across the House of Lords to amend the Bill to enable future secondary legislation to target the measure more precisely while avoiding adverse impacts on property investment and development.