0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

a lease break fails because a tenant did not remove extensive partitioning

29 July 2016
Riverside Park Ltd v NHS Property Services Limited is a must-read case. It provides guidance on a variety of issues associated with conditional breaks, including whether certain items are chattels or fixtures, what giving vacant possession means, interpretation of break conditions and reinstatement trigger notices. 

The court found that vacant possession had not been given because extensive partitioning had not been removed. The partitioning was found to be chattel as opposed to a fixture and the court neatly summarises and applies the relevant law. Interestingly however the court found that the tenant was on “stronger ground” in arguing that its failure to remove kitchen units, floor coverings, window blinds, an alarm and water pipes was not breach of the obligation to give vacant possession. The tenant’s failure to remove the partitioning meant vacant possession was not given and the 2013 break option failed.        

The message:  If you are thinking about exercising a break it is crucial you take advice and that you take a cautious view on whether items need to be removed as part of any conditions of the break. 

related opinions

Abolition of employment tribunal fees leads to dramatic increase in claims and backlog

Newly published Employment Tribunal statistics show there has been a dramatic increase in claims received by the Employment Tribunals from October to December 2017.

View blog

Redress scheme announces departure from property regulation

On 6 February 2018, the Ombudsman Services accounted its intention to withdraw from handling complaints in the property sector as of 6 August 2018.

View blog

Primark criticised for failure to introduce policy on gender reassignment

In a recent case of gender reassignment discrimination, the employment tribunal has ruled that Primark subjected the claimant to direct discrimination by failing to properly investigate complaints.

View blog

New development - Louboutin’s red sole trade mark

Advocate General Szpunar’s recent second opinion is the latest development in relation to Louboutin’s ongoing fight to keep its trade marks for its renowned red sole.

View blog