Agreements for lease for construction lawyers

An agreement for lease is an agreement entered into by a property owner or landlord and a tenant, under which the tenant agrees to enter into a lease in respect of the whole or part of a property in the future, following the fulfilment of certain obligations by the landlord as contained in the agreement for lease. Agreements for lease are needed in a number of situations, including where the lease cannot be entered into until after construction works are carried out.

Most agreements for lease are prepared by property lawyers, but where the agreement lease relates to the construction or refurbishment of a building, construction lawyers are usually asked to draft and negotiate the clauses which relate to construction. Given that the construction provisions can often take up the bulk of the document, construction lawyers need to understand both the nature of the property transaction and what construction clauses need to be included to protect the interests of the parties.

In addition to agreeing the relevant provisions of the agreement for lease, the role of the construction lawyer is also to ensure that the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Construction News

MHCLG publishes translated versions of response to Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has published translated versions of the executive summary and chapter one of its response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry's Phase 2 report. These translations are available in eleven languages, including Amharic, Arabic, Farsi, Italian, Portuguese, Somali, Spanish, Tagalog, Tigrinya, Urdu, and Vietnamese.

MHCLG publishes Circular 01/2025 on amendments to Approved Document B (Fire Safety)

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has published Circular 01/2025, along with an accompanying letter, announcing the withdrawal and replacement of Approved Document B (Fire Safety) Volumes 1 and 2: 2019 edition incorporating 2020 and 2022 amendments collated with 2025, 2026, and 2029 amendments. The circular details where changes have been made to correct typographical errors. MHCLG has confirmed that these corrections do not alter the underlying policy intent, implementation schedule, or transitional provisions. These changes took effect on 2 March 2025.

Court finds it has power to determine Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction (Barclays Bank plc v VEB RF)

Arbitration analysis: The London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) made a rare finding that it was able to determine whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an arbitration agreement, in an application made pursuant to section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (Arbitration Act). The underlying dispute concerned a currency swap agreement between Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) and VEB.RF (VEB), in which Barclays claimed it was lawfully unable to pay a sum that would otherwise be due and owing to VEB under the contract as VEB had been sanctioned. After VEB commenced court proceedings in Russia against Barclays, Barclays obtained an anti-suit injunction (ASI) preventing the dispute from being heard otherwise than by LCIA Arbitration, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Barclays later sought to amend the ASI to allow the dispute to be heard in the LCCC, arguing that the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction because Barclays had exercised its contractual right to require the dispute to be heard by the courts. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at RPC.

Retention of title clauses, section 49(2) SGA 1979 and contractual estoppel in guarantee claims (CE Energy v Bashar & another)

Commercial analysis: This is an important decision as to a seller’s ability to claim in debt for the price of unpaid goods notwithstanding a retention of title provision in the contract of sale. The judgment contains a useful analysis as to the requirement, in section 49(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979), for a price to be payable on ‘a day certain irrespective of delivery’, confirming that a wide interpretation should be adopted. The case also contains guidance as to construing guarantees and the operation and effect of the doctrine of contractual estoppel. Written by Nicola Allsop, barrister at Quadrant Chambers.