EDIT 22.11.2022: as this post went to press, the Appeal Court departed from the view of both the High Court and the County Court, and proclaimed a strict orthodoxy.  They held that the judge below had asked himself the wrong question; he should have asked whether the notice had been given to the tenant, not what the notice had meant.  The appeal shows that the utmost care must be taken when serving break notices, as the court will show no leniency if the notice is incorrect.  

Ensuring a break notice is validly served can be critical, especially for fixed break dates as without a rolling break option there is only one ‘bite of the cherry’ to break the lease. The consequences of serving an invalid break notice may be drastic, for example, it may fetter a landlord in obtaining vacant possession in order to carry out a development scheme or a tenant may remain liable for a lease that it no longer wants and cannot get rid of in any other way.

The high stakes are perhaps the main reason why the validity of break notices is a question asked of the courts time and time again. In this article we will consider three points that might catch you out when serving a break notice and one that was considered recently by the High Court in Turner v Thomas [2022] and which might save an otherwise inaccurate break notice.

Continue Reading Nelsonian blindness is no defence to a break notice

For those of you living outside of the UK, Waitrose is an upmarket supermarket whose wares are indefinably better, or at least more expensive, than its competitors.  If an area hosts a Waitrose, then it proves that it is a good place to live, and property prices will leap with joy at the privilege.

Competition law rarely intrudes into land agreements.  Indeed, until 2011, when the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010 (the ‘Order’) was introduced, most land agreements were not caught at all.  In the past eleven years there have been very few cases brought under the legislation, explicable by the softly, softly approach that the regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”), chooses to take. 

Last month, investors and their advisers alike were reminded that competition law is something that should concern them: the CMA wrote an open letter to Waitrose, requesting it to remove restrictive trading clauses from seven land agreements in different localities.  Waitrose has, of course, responded positively.

Grocery retailers, or at least the “Big 7” – M&S, Sainsbury’s, Tesco’s, Morrisons, Waitrose, Asda and the Co-op – must comply with additional secondary legislation under the Competition Act 1999, namely the Order (Discount retailers, such as Aldi and Lidl, have not been included in the list, which has remained unchanged since 2011; this despite the fact that both Aldi and Lidl have more stores than Waitrose.)  The legislation resulted from a survey of the grocery market carried out by the Office of Fair Trading, the predecessor to the CMA, which found egregious abuse of market position by the Big 7.  The Order imposes a test to decide whether a grocer has achieved market dominance in a particular market and is calculated with reference to the number of units of a retailer operates within a ten minutes’ drive.  If the test is failed, then the grocer will not be able to open a new store within that area.    

In recent years, the CMA has also written to Tesco and to Morrison.  However, it is not just grocers who are liable to fall foul of competition law.  Airport car parking provision has come under the spotlight too, after the operators of Heathrow Airport were fined £1.6m for entering into a “price-fixing” agreement with an hotel on their land.  Subsequent investigations by the CMA revealed other anti-competitive arrangements in other regional airports, although these breaches were resolved less punitively. 

The CMA has made it clear in the past that land agreements which do fall foul of Chapter I of the Competition Act will, however, be the exception.  Section 9 of the Act allows such agreements if they benefit the consumer in addition to giving the trader a competitive advantage. An example of this would be a landlord’s policy of wide tenant mix in a shopping centre, or the early enrolment of an “anchor tenant” in a development to attract funding and wider tenant interest.  However, anchor tenants should not expect indefinite special treatment.  As a rule of thumb, five years seems to be acceptable, whereas 10 years – which was what the Waitrose stores had signed up to – is too long. 

Landowners should be wary of attempts by tenants to insert anti-competitive clauses into property documents.  Such agreements may fetter subsequent land management policies, whilst being open to future intervention by the CMA.  Competition law, largely ignored by the property world for so long, is another factor that needs to be considered in property transactions. 


If you wish to receive periodic updates on this or other topics related to UK real estate, subscribe to our Real Estate Insights mailing list.

For any other legal questions related to UK real estate, please get in touch with your usual Mayer Brown contact or one of the blog editors.

The Court of Appeal, in the conjoined appeals of London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd, once again vindicated beleaguered landlords by refusing to imply terms into professionally negotiated leases.  Tenants cannot withhold rent except in circumstances expressly set out in the lease.   

Buttressing the judgment is the reiteration of the stated “fundamental basis” of a lease: it is an estate granting exclusive possession for a fixed term, in consideration for payment of rent. The tenants’ frustrated intention to use the premises as a cinema was not sufficient to cause a total failure of consideration.


The defendant tenants are both part of the troubled Cineworld Group plc, which is the second largest cinema operator in the world. The appeals related to whether they remained liable to pay rent when COVID-19 restrictions required them to close their cinemas. The landlords pursued the defendants for arrears incurred during this time, and, because there was no basis in law for the tenants’ defence, the landlords successfully applied for summary judgment.  That first instance decision gave rise to this appeal.   

The Arguments

The tenants put forward the following arguments:

  • COVID-19 restrictions caused a “failure of basis”, which should therefore give rise to a restitutionary claim against the landlords. The tenants had had no benefit from the contract during this time and therefore, they argued, if they did pay rent, the landlords would unjustly benefit from its receipt; 
  • a term should be implied into the leases that the obligation to pay rent would be suspended when the lawful use became impossible; and
  • in respect of one of the leases, that the tenant were relieved of their obligations to pay rent by the rent cesser clause in the leases.

A strong Court of Appeal firmly rejected all three arguments.

Unjust enrichment

This was an audacious defence for the tenants to raise.  Unsurprisingly, the court preferred to maintain the status quo rather than extend radical restitutionary principles to undermine established property rights.

It restated that a lease was a contract whereby the tenant was granted exclusive possession, for a term, at a rent.  The COVID-19 regulations did not alter this basis.  The jointly held knowledge at the grant of the lease that the tenant would use the premises for a cinema was immaterial; to suggest that the landlords had unmeritoriously benefited by continuing to demand rent when the tenants could not run their business, was to impose the alien idea that the landlords and the tenants had agreed to share a commercial risk.

In addition, one of the leases permitted change of use with the landlord’s consent and therefore contemplated an alternative use to a cinema. The other lease specifically stated that the landlord gave no reassurance that the premises could actually be used as a cinema, and the same lease also contained a tenant covenant to comply with statute. The allocation of risk was therefore again laid upon the tenant; a statute might prevent it from being able to use the premises, but the rent obligation remained.

Rent Cesser

Under the rent cesser clause in one of the leases, rent was to be suspended where the premises were destroyed or damaged so that the tenant was unable to occupy or use the premises.  

The tenants’ argument was that damage could be financial and not just physical. The sole permitted use under the leases was as a cinema. The rent cesser therefore provided for rent to be suspended where government restrictions “damaged” the premises by making them unfit for cinema use.

Again, the court found against the tenants and held that this was a distortion of the natural meaning of words.  Words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning.  “Damage” meant physical damage, and this was underlined by the juxtaposition of “damage” with “destruction”.

Later wording in the clause purportedly supported this interpretation, affirming that such cesser would continue until the premises were rebuilt or reinstated so as to again be fit for occupation and use.  If this was impossible within a three year period, then there was the right for the tenants to terminate the leases. Only physical damage requires rebuilding or reinstatement.  Further, an estate in land such as a lease has no legal personality and therefore it cannot suffer consequential financial damage.

Implied Terms

The tenants advanced a further bold argument, that there should be a term implied into the leases that for any period during which the permitted use became illegal, the obligation to pay rent should be suspended.

Last year, the Court of Appeal restated the law on the implication of terms into professionally drafted documents, namely that:

  • this should only be done where it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, such that the contract would lack commercial or practical coherence without it; or
  • the necessity for implication is so obvious that it goes without saying.

As the leases worked without the requested terms being implied, the tenants’ argument was rejected.  The suggestion that landlords would have automatically have agreed to a rent suspension if the possibility of the COVID-19 situation had been raised during negotiation of the leases was unrealistic.

A key focus of the judgment was the allocation of risk. To imply the terms the tenants were suggesting would contradict the express terms of the leases and reallocate the risk bargained for between the parties.


The Court of Appeal has once again demonstrated its reluctance to depart from long established land law principles, and again shown why England and Wales is an excellent place for property investment.  Even an event as novel as a global pandemic will not displace an innate conservatism to develop the common law only incrementally, based on established legal principles.

This is one of a series of cases arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has illustrated how English courts value certainty and precedent over short term alleviation of purported unfairness.  From a landlord’s perspective, this is in welcome contrast with certain European countries where leases have been deemed to have been frustrated, or state-sponsored rent holidays have been imposed. 

It would be inaccurate to brand the English courts as always “landlord friendly” in relation to commercial leases. However, despite unparalleled world events, they have shown awareness of larger economic and political concerns, using common law precedent as a robust mechanism to achieve this. 

Post Script

This judgment may sadly prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the landlords.  Cineworld Group plc, has already filed under Chapter 11 for bankruptcy in the US.  Whilst it denies that it is planning insolvency measures in the UK, its share price has fallen dramatically such that restructuring or sale may be the only long term solution and, from a landlord’s perspective, restructuring laws offer less protection than they would like.


If you wish to receive periodic updates on this or other topics related to UK real estate, subscribe to our Real Estate Insights mailing list

For any other legal questions related to UK real estate, please get in touch with your usual Mayer Brown contact or one of the blog editors.

When acquiring a property for development, covenants that restrict the type or form of development always need to be carefully considered. There are a number of ways in which restrictive covenants can be addressed, and in two recent cases developers sought to have the relevant restrictive covenants discharged following the grant of planning permission.

The power to modify or discharge

Section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 grants the Courts the power to wholly or partially modify or discharge restrictive covenants where the applicant can prove one of the following grounds:

  • Ground (a) – established where the Court considers that changes in the character of the property or the neighbourhood or other circumstances that the Court may deem material means that the restriction ought to be deemed obsolete.
  • Ground (aa) – established where the continued existence of the restrictive covenant would impede some reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes. In applying Ground (aa), the Court must be satisfied that the restrictive covenant (i) does not secure to the persons entitled to the benefit of it any practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to them; or  (ii) is contrary to the public interest.
  • Ground (b) – established where the beneficiary of the restrictive covenant has agreed, either expressly or by implication, to the same being discharged.
  • Ground (c) – established where the Court finds that the proposed discharge or modification will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restrictive covenants.

HAE Development Ltd v The Croft Ealing Ltd [2022] UKUT 120 (LC)

The development site in the HAE Development Ltd v The Croft Ealing Ltd [2022] UKUT 120 (LC) case was subject to restrictive covenants from 1955 which prevented the building of more than one dwelling house on the site and restricted other uses that would cause a nuisance or annoyance to the objectors. The developer had obtained planning permission for the construction of eight flats and then applied to have the restrictive covenants discharged citing grounds (a), (aa) and (c) above.

The Court found in favour of the applicant; making out all three grounds.

Ground (a) – the objectors argued that the purpose of the restriction was to preserve the neighbourhood as an area of houses rather than flats and that such a purpose could still be achieved by retaining the restrictive covenant. However the Court found that as the neighbourhood had changed considerably since 1955, including many buildings being converted to flats (including the property owned by the objectors) the purpose was “entirely superfluous”.

Grounds (aa) and (c) – the Court considered the questions established in Re Bass [1973] P&CR 156:

Is the proposed use reasonable? As the proposed development had been through the scrutiny of a thorough planning process, the Court found that the proposed use was reasonable.

Do the restrictions, in impeding development, secure a practical benefit for the objectors? The objectors raised a number of prejudices that they claimed would be caused by the proposed development, including the adjoining land being overlooked and the impacts of intensification of user. The Court found that the drafting of the restrictive covenants was not specific enough to afford the objectors any “advantage” in not being overlooked – the development of a single dwelling house, as permitted under the restrictive covenants, would also have the potential to cause the same injury. The Court found that the other prejudices raised were dealt with by the conditions to the planning permission.

Specifically considering Ground (aa), the Court found that the restrictive covenants would impede development for a reasonable use of the land for housing and did not secure the objectors any practical benefit.

Mill Strand Developments Ltd v Tapp and Ors [2022] UKUT 143 (LC)

The second development site in Mill Strand Developments Ltd v Tapp and Ors [2022] UKUT 143 (LC) was subject to a 1972 restrictive covenant not to erect any structures that were not of an agricultural nature, which was aimed at protecting the value of the then recent residential development of the adjoining land. The developer had obtained planning permission for the construction of five detached houses and applied to discharge the restrictive covenant pursuant to grounds (c) and (aa).

Again, the Court found in favour of the applicant.

Ground (aa) – as before, the Court first considered the questions established in Re Bass. It was again held that since the proposed development had been through the “scrutiny” of the planning process it was a reasonable use for the land.

Whilst the Court found that the restrictive covenant did confer some practical benefit on one of the objectors, as the development would disrupt their current “rural view over undeveloped land”, they did not find that practical benefit to be substantial, concluding that if the land remained undeveloped it would most likely turn to scrub land that would have no economic value and would not be particularly attractive. The court found that £25,000 would be adequate to compensate the one objector who took some practical benefit from the restriction.

Ground (c) – this ground was not considered further by the Court as it had already found that the discharge of the restrictive covenant would cause injury to one of the objectors.


In the two cases considered in this article, the Courts have shown a willingness to discharge restrictive covenants where they consider that the proposed development has been through sufficient scrutiny through the planning process to deem the proposal to be reasonable. The Courts were critical of arguments from objectors focused on personal gain and injury where there is a wider public benefit to the developments being considered – the Courts have taken a very practical approach.

Development sites almost always include elements of risk – it is often the existence of development constraints that create the greatest potential value if the constraints can be dealt with. A lot of developers consider insurance as the best way to address restrictive covenants. However, the availability of the Court’s powers to discharge or modify such restrictive covenant should also be considered and these cases are helpful in providing additional guidance and a reminder of the availability of this option.


If you wish to receive periodic updates on this or other topics related to UK real estate, subscribe to our Real Estate Insights mailing list

For any other legal questions related to UK real estate, please get in touch with your usual Mayer Brown contact or one of the blog editors.


Reform of the regime governing residential long leaseholds (leases of dwellings for a term of twenty one years or more) has been going on for over fifty years.  The latest reform is to restrict a landlord’s ability to charge ground rent on top of an initial premium paid on the grant of the lease.  Ground rent is a sum the tenant pays annually, in addition to the lump sum for the lease itself.  Unlike insurance rent and service charges which the tenant must also pay, ground rent is seen as an ongoing windfall for the landlord, as it is not referable to provision of a service.

Continue Reading Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022

Following the introduction of the Government’s Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill  to the House of Commons on 11 May 2022, we follow up on our article Levelling Up – Government to play matchmaker on the high street? with an overview of the proposed legislation.

In brief, the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill  (the “Bill”) establishes a statutory notice procedure to be followed by local authorities before a rental auction can be carried out and the landlord required to grant a short-term tenancy to the “successful bidder”.

Continue Reading Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill – High Street Rental Auctions

Last week the UK Government published its long-awaited proposals for reform of the planning system in England and Wales, in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill.

Back in June 2020, radical reforms to the planning system were proposed, including introducing zoning and deemed planning permission in designated growth areas.  Despite the abandonment of these far-reaching reforms, the proposals set out in the Bill, are significant.  The main changes are as follows.

Central Government will take a much greater role in planning

This will be achieved by the introduction of a new suite of National Development Management Policies which will set out generic planning policies applicable across the country.  Local Plans will be expected to restrict themselves to purely local issues.  The expectation is that this will provide greater consistency in decision-making and help with the speedy production of up-to-date Local Plans.  This is backed by a new statutory provision to the effect that applications are to be determined in accordance with the Local Plan and National Development Management Policies and if there is a conflict between the two, national policies will prevail.

This is a significant cultural shift from the position to date under which locally-determined policies should prevail.  There is also some scepticism about the production of a whole new suite of national policies: is this a return to the days of PPGs which were swept away on the grounds that these were too unwieldy and bureaucratic?

Continue Reading Levelling Up and Planning Reform

The Government’s recent Levelling Up the United Kingdom White Paper announced the intention to give local authorities the power to require landlords to rent out long-term vacant properties on the high street to tenants such as local businesses and community groups. This is primarily targeted at addressing the social problems associated with high streets that have high vacancy rates. Very little detail has so far been announced and we await the release of the Levelling Up Bill after the Queen’s Speech on 10 May 2022.

In this article we will consider some questions arising out of the White Paper, and we will follow up on the detail once the Bill is released.

Continue Reading Levelling Up – Government to play matchmaker on the high street?


From the Domesday Book of William the Conqueror, to the establishment of the Land Registry, identifying the owner of a piece of land has had a long history in the UK.  Whilst William wanted to know the extent of his conquered lands so he could tax his new subjects, and land registration was introduced to make conveyancing and mortgages easier, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act (the “Act”) has a more high minded purpose.  It is intended to make public the “real” identity of foreign proprietors owning land in the UK and thus discourage bad actors from investing in English real estate.

Continue Reading The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act: what to expect

After a long period of uncertainty, HMRC have finally issued their decision as to whether or not valued added tax (“VAT”) is chargeable on dilapidations payments.

Historically, dilapidations payable by a tenant at the end of a lease had not been subject to VAT.  The payment was to compensate the landlord for having its premises returned in disrepair, contrary to the tenant’s promise to keep them in repair.  Truly compensatory payments have historically been treated as not subject to VAT as it was considered they were not payments for a supply of goods or services.

Continue Reading As you were! HMRC decides no VAT payable on dilapidations payments after all