This question raises the requirement to comply with the terms of a break clause if a tenant is to bring a tenancy to an end. The courts are quite strict when it comes to determining when it has to be exercised. Time is of the essence as is compliance with the terms of the clause. As Lord Diplock put it in the House of Lords decision in United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council; Cheapside Land Development Co Ltd v Messels Service Co: ‘The exercise of this option by the tenant will have the effect of depriving the landlord of the existing source of income from his property and the evident purpose of the stipulation as to notice is to leave him free thereafter to enter

Under section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) a tenant has the right to extend the term of their lease. The extension could be for a further 90 years on top of the current term of the tenant’s lease. In order to qualify for this right, the tenant will need to have a ‘long lease’ and will need to have owned it for two years or more. The lease will not qualify if it is a business or commercial lease, or if the landlord is a charitable housing trust. The process for extending the lease commences by way of service of a notice pursuant to LRHUDA 1993, s 42 on the landlord. Service of the notice fixes the valuation

Interim rent is an amount which is reasonable for the tenant to pay while its tenancy is being continued, pursuant to section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). Either a landlord or tenant may make an interim rent application once an LTA 1954, s 25 notice or LTA 1954, s 26 request has been served, and can be made as part of the lease renewal proceedings or as a standalone application. Pursuant to LTA 1954, s 24B, interim rent is payable from the ‘appropriate

General principles Following the expiry of a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy (AST), a periodic tenancy arises by virtue of section 5 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). Pursuant to s 5(3)(d) of HA 1988, the period of the resulting tenancy is to be determined by reference to 'the period for which rent was last payable' under the fixed tenancy. In the present case, it is clear that rent is paid monthly, and so the tenancy that arises by operation

This response considers the termination of a business tenancy when the tenant has stayed in occupation for a period of years following expiry of a tenancy, not subject to the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), by efflux of time. Nature of the tenancy The

It is assumed that the statutory declaration has been sworn before, and not by, a magistrate. Under section 18 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, any justice of the peace, notary public or other officer authorised at the time of the passing of the Act to administer an oath may take the declaration of any person voluntarily making the declaration before them in the prescribed form. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, despite its title and its use of the term 'magistrates' court', still uses the description 'justice of the peace' to describe the holder of the office. In practice, most declarations are made

This Q&A relates to whether the landlord can serve a schedule of dilapidations in respect of partitioning. It looks at whether the existence of partitioning will prejudice the ability of the tenant to determine the lease by the operation of the break. The latter is not considered in this response. Further, this Q&A assumes that the partitions were installed (with the authorisation of the landlord) by the tenant

Allocation of responsibility for repair The responsibility for maintenance and repair will depend on the terms of the lease and, most importantly, the definition of the demised premises. As an example, if the lease is part only of the landlord’s property then the demise will usually include only the service media within and exclusively serving the demised premises, and which are owned by the landlord and exclude any service media within the demised premises, but which do not serve it exclusively, or which are not owned by the landlord. Then the landlord’s retained property will often include the service media within it and outside but exclusively serving it (but excluding any service media not owned by the landlord). Thus, even in the absence of a specific

Prescription is a means of acquiring a right through long use of enjoyment. There are three methods of claiming a right by prescription: • at common law; • by lost modern grant; • under the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832) Common law At common law, it is presumed that a right which could be shown to have been exercised for at least 20 years, had commenced before 1189. This presumption could be rebutted by showing either of the following: • the right had not in fact been exercised at all times since before 1189, or • at some point the dominant and

A tenancy at will is a precarious interest, which, as its name suggests, can be brought to an end at the will of the landlord. No notice period needs to be given. As soon as the landlord communicates to the tenant the intention that the tenancy be brought to an end, it determines automatically. If the tenant remains in occupation, it does so as a trespasser. For more information in respect of tenancies at will, see Practice Note: Leases and licences of land—key features and differences and Commentary: Nature of tenancy at will: Halsbury's Laws of England [192]. It is assumed that the intention

Unless the parties to the lease follow the statutory procedure to exclude it, a tenant who occupies premises for the purposes of a business carried on by him will have the protection of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and LTA 1954, s 23(1). When that tenancy is brought to an end in accordance with the machinery of the LTA 1954, the tenant is entitled to apply to the court for a new tenancy. This question raises the issue as to what property will be comprised in that new tenancy. The starting point is that the tenant is entitled to a new tenancy of 'the holding'. This follows

It is often the case that, following the expiration of a business tenancy that has been excluded from the security of tenure provisions contained within Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), a tenant will continue to occupy the premises while negotiations take place for a new lease. If the parties are not