Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The Supreme Court has today unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal decision that where a tenant exercises a right to break a lease, no term should generally be implied that the landlord must reimburse that tenant for sums paid in advance which relate to any period after the break date.
In this case, the tenant had four leases, each with identical break rights on 24 January 2012. Operation of the break clauses was conditional (amongst other things) on there being no arrears of basic rent on the break date.
As required by case law, the tenant paid the full quarter’s rents due on 25 December 2011 and successfully exercised the break rights. However, today’s ruling means that it cannot claim reimbursement of nearly £1m paid in advance covering the period from the break date up to the next quarter day.
It therefore remains imperative when negotiating a break clause in a lease to ensure that the lease contains an express clause obliging the landlord to reimburse such advance payments.
Physical retail spaces are not just 'shops' anymore; barely 46% of consumers felt stores were useful for comparing products. Instead, browsing in a physical store is just one part of an overall consumer experience.
Zynstra, a specialist IT solutions provider, has published a white paper which looks at branch IT solutions for retailers.
In 2011 the Court decided anti-avoidance provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 precluded a tenant’s guarantor from directly guaranteeing obligations of its assignee.
The Supreme Court has today rejected a claim that a £85 fee for parking for longer than two hours on a retail park was unenforceable as a penalty.
Keep up with the latest content from Browne Jacobson:
© Copyright Browne Jacobson LLP 2017 - All rights reserved