Supreme Court confirms that a term requiring the landlord to repay rent for a period after a break date will not be implied into a lease.

The Supreme Court in M&S v. BNP Paribas has firmly shut the door on tenants who have successfully operated break clauses and wish to claim back rent they have paid in respect of a period after the break date.

The Supreme Court has confirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision and given certainty that, without express wording to the contrary in the lease, a tenant’s claim for the apportioned rent for the remainder of the quarter is unlikely to succeed.

The Court carefully looked at the case law about what happens when you do not include a term in a contract. They came to the conclusion that no term should be added to the lease because of the clear terms of the lease and the law on implied terms in apportionment.

A term will only be implied if it satisfies the test of business necessity or is so obvious that it goes without saying. Where the parties have spent time negotiating a “detailed commercial contract,” the courts are more likely to steer away from implying additional terms.

To understand our comprehensive range of services & areas of expertise, contact the Landlord & Tenant specialists at Roger Hannah & Co. for a free consultation at 0161 429 1670.