The meaning of vacant possession – useful guidance from the Court of Appeal

16 Sep 2021

When drafting any break clause in a lease/tenancy, tenants are well advised to avoid any break clause being conditional on the requirement for them to provide vacant possession.  This is because there have been a number of cases in the courts debating what is meant by “vacant possession”, and the interpretation given by the courts has extended beyond just the tenant giving up the property free of occupation. In some cases, for example, it has included the requirement to remove partitioning, with a failure to do so resulting in the break notice being invalid and the lease continuing.  This can be disastrous for tenants, who may have already signed up for a new lease on alternative premises and are then faced with paying rent for two premises.
 
The recent case of Capitol Park Leeds plc v Global Radio Serviced Ltd [2021] however provides landlords and tenants with some useful guidance on what is meant by “vacant possession”. 
 
The facts of the matter
The case involved a break clause which was conditional on the tenant “providing vacant possession of the Premises”.  The definition of Premises within the lease included both the original building and all fixtures and fittings at the Premises whenever fixed. 

The tenant had stripped out of the unit a range of items including ceiling grids and tiles, fire barriers, floor finishes, pipework, lighting, smoke detection systems and radiators.

The evidence showed that these items had been part of the original base build specification and so were landlord’s fixtures or elements of the building itself.  The landlord therefore argued that by removing significant elements of the building or fixtures, the tenant had failed to give vacant possession of the Premises and therefore the break had not been validly exercised and the lease continued.
 
Court of Appeal
In the High Court, the Judge agreed with the landlord.  On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held that the requirement to provide vacant possession only required the tenant to return the Premises to the landlord free of people, chattels and legal interests and was not concerned with the physical state of the Premises. 

The break clause made no mention of repair or condition, which the yield up provisions in the lease did; the landlord could still therefore pursue the tenant for a claim for damages for their failure to comply with their repairing obligations. 

The Court also said that although previous case law stipulated that the conditions prescribed in a break clause must be strictly complied with, this does not mean that the clause must be construed strictly or, in particular, adversely to the tenant.  The break notice was therefore valid and the landlord could pursue a claim for dilapidations for breaches of covenant for any losses suffered.
 
Right first time
The case will offer useful leverage to tenants whose landlords are currently disputing the validity of a break clause due to their alleged failure to provide vacant possession, and to those tenants who already have a lease where the break clause is conditional on the requirement to give vacant possession. 

However, given that the courts have not consistently interpreted the meaning of vacant possession yet, tenants should still push for any break clauses not to be conditional on the requirement to give vacant possession at all; alternative wording should be agreed so this never becomes an issue.
 

Further reading

Business and divorce: what to know if going into business with your spouse

Blog
30/01/2023
When going into business with a spouse, you do so without expecting to divorce. However, it is wise to consider this from the outset and plan for it, just in case
Read more Read

Pre-Nuptial Agreements: Part 1 – to have or not to have?

Blog
27/01/2023
Should you get a Pre-Nuptial Agreement? Nigel Winter discusses the answer to this question in the first of a series of blogs on the subject
Read more Read

US Attorney General Merrick Garland files Anti-Trust Suit against Google

Blog
25/01/2023
The tech giant is accused of buying up competitors. Google has stated that it does not hold a monopoly in the relevant market
Read more Read

DMH Stallard advises CGR on the acquisition of John Binns & Sons Ltd

Blog, News & PR
25/01/2023
“JB Springs is a fantastic opportunity for CGR to establish a first base in the UK. DMH Stallard played a key role helping us to close the deal.”
Read more Read
  • Brighton - Jubilee St

    1 Jubilee Street

    Brighton

    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Brighton - Old Steine

    47 Old Steine

    Brighton

    East Sussex

    BN1 1NW

  • Gatwick

    Griffin House

    135 High Street

    Crawley

    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road

    Guildford

    Surrey

    GU3 1LR

  • Hassocks

    32 Keymer Road

    Hassocks

    West Sussex

    BN6 8AL

  • Horsham

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax

    Horsham

    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane

    London

    EC4A 3BF

  • Make an enquiry

    Make an enquiry

    Message

    Or head to our Contact us page