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

When is a headscarf ban justified?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has heard its first cases concerning religious discrimination and given two landmark rulings.

View blog

Liability for business rates whilst property being refurbished

With the current publicity over the rating revaluation coming in next month alongside proposed changes to the appeals process, today’s Supreme Court decision will come as a relief to embattled ratepayers.

View blog

Security for costs: a shareholder’s indemnity does not provide protection

The case of Dunn Motor Traction LTD (C) v National Express LTD (D) [2017] EWHC 228 (Comm) QBD (Comm) has decided that an indemnity from the claimant’s shareholder (shareholder) does not give the same protection as after the event insurance (ATE) when deciding whether to grant an order for security of costs.

View blog

National minimum wage offenders named and shamed

Yesterday the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy named 359 UK businesses which have failed to pay the National Minimum Wage (NMW) or the National Living Wage (NLW).

View blog