Lease variations

While this Overview primarily concerns commercial property matters, it also touches on residential considerations.

Parties often wish to renegotiate the terms of an existing lease. Following completion of a lease, landlords and tenants are free to negotiate a variation to the lease terms (although generally the other party is under no obligation to negotiate or agree any variation).

The parties will usually enter into a deed of variation to expressly record any agreed variation to the original lease. If the change to lease terms is a personal or temporary concession, the parties may agree to enter into a side letter instead—see Practice Note: Side letters to leases and Precedent: Side letter modifying lease terms.

Key areas of risk relating to lease variations include:

  1. inadvertent surrender and regrant (by operation of law)

  2. release of guarantors (or former tenants that remain bound by tenant covenants) and other issues relating to guarantors

  3. failure to obtain necessary third-party consents (eg superior landlord, mortgagee)

  4. unintended consequences, including in relation to superior leases, underleases or tax, and

  5. failure to comply with registration requirements

For general guidance

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