A recent High Court decision provides an important reminder that the success or failure of a tenant's break notice may depend not only on the wording of the lease, but also on the conduct of landlords and their managing agents.
The lease contained a common condition requiring the tenant to have paid all sums due under the lease before the break date. Before exercising its break option, the tenant contacted the landlord's managing agents seeking confirmation of the amounts that needed to be paid before handover.
The agents subsequently issued an invoice, which the tenant paid in full. However, the invoice did not include all sums that were technically due under the lease. The landlord later argued that the break notice was ineffective because rent and insurance rent remained outstanding.
The High Court disagreed. It held that the landlord was estopped from relying on the unpaid sums because the invoice constituted a clear representation of what was required for the break to take effect. The tenant had reasonably relied on that representation and it would have been unconscionable for the landlord to take a different position after the event.
The court also found that a last-minute demand for insurance rent did not give the tenant a reasonable opportunity to make payment before the break date.
Break conditions are often drafted strictly, with even small outstanding sums capable of invalidating a tenant's attempt to terminate a lease. Landlords have traditionally relied on such provisions where tenants have failed to comply precisely with the lease requirements.
This decision demonstrates that, regardless of how robust the lease drafting may be, a landlord's ability to rely on those conditions can be undermined by its own communications and conduct. If a tenant requests confirmation of the payments required to satisfy a break condition, any response should be carefully reviewed to ensure it is accurate and complete.
Landlords and managing agents should consider:
Implementing a formal process for responding to break notice enquiries.
Ensuring that all rent, insurance rent, service charge and other sums are identified before figures are provided to the tenant.
Including appropriate caveats where a statement of account may not capture every sum due.
Issuing demands for insurance rent and other break-critical payments well in advance of the break date.
Maintaining clear records of all communications relating to break compliance.
The case highlights that successful break disputes are not always won on lease drafting alone. Clear but incomplete information can create significant risk for landlords. Where tenants seek confirmation of the sums required to satisfy a break condition, landlords and managing agents should treat their response with the same care as the break clause itself.
In short, a carefully drafted break clause may provide little protection if subsequent communications suggest that less is required for the break to take effect.
For advice on reviewing a break clause or serving a break notice, please speak to a member of our property disputes team. If you require assistance with drafting or negotiating a break clause as part of a lease, our real estate team can help.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
