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

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

Does an employee with the right of abode need to provide right to work documents?

The EAT has confirmed that it is unfair to dismiss an employee who has the right to work in the UK because he could not provide documentary evidence of that right.

View blog

Judge upholds unfair prejudice claim against Blackpool Football Club following gentleman's agreement

This case is a prime example of where oral contracts have been upheld and have resulted in huge consequences for all parties.

View blog

Employment tribunal fee refund scheme

On 26 July 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Employment Tribunal fee regime was unlawful under both domestic and EU law.

View blog

Automatic right for an order for specific disclosure? Not without justification

The application made by the claimant in Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v EE Ltd (2017) for an order for specific disclosure against the defendant was refused by the court.

View blog