Lease surrenders

Lease surrenders

A surrender is a transfer by a tenant to its landlord. The lease 'merges' into the landlord's interest. Rent will cease accruing at the point of surrender, as will liability for the performance of covenants in the lease. However, in the absence of an express release, both parties remain liable for breaches arising prior to the surrender. A lease surrender requires mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant.

There are two types of surrender—express and implied (occurs by operation of law):

•
express—which is achieved formally, in writing, usually by deed, although this is not always necessary, see Practice Note: Lease surrenders
•
implied—this occurs when the unequivocal conduct of both parties is inconsistent with the continuation of the tenancy, see Practice Note: Surrender by operation of law (implied surrender)

Our Practice Notes in this topic provide both general guidance on lease surrenders and guidance on specific issues encountered in the course of a lease surrender, including guidance on:

•
key aspects of lease surrenders, eg:
1. ◦
  an explanation of what constitutes a lease surrender
2. ◦
  the differences between an express surrender and a surrender

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 Property News

BPF responds to Law Commission's consultation on right to renew business tenancies

The British Property Federation (BPF) has responded to the Law Commission’s consultation on the right to renew business tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). The BPF contends that security of tenure should not be the default position for commercial leases. It recommends shifting from an 'opt-out' to an 'opt-in' approach and excluding leases of five years or less from security of tenure. The BPF asserts that this approach would streamline the leasing process, facilitate the decarbonisation of buildings, simplify town centre redevelopment and repurposing, and reduce pressure on the courts. In addition, the BPF argues that the LTA 1954 makes it difficult for property owners to introduce green clauses into leases or access properties for retrofitting to improve environmental sustainability. The BPF also strongly opposes the Law Commission’s proposal for mandatory security of tenure, stating that it would restrict property owners’ ability to manage their property effectively and reduce investment in the commercial property sector.

Property weekly highlights—20 February 2025

This week's edition of Property weekly highlights includes: the BPF’s response to the Law Commission’s consultation on the right to renew business tenancies, a case on a landlord’s opposition to the renewal of a business tenancy on the basis of it’s intention to occupy for the purpose of its business, analysis of a tribunal decision giving guidance on the ‘just and equitable’ test for remediation contribution orders under the Building Safety Act 2022, a Court of Appeal decision concerning the legal requirements for service of pre-tenancy documentation in the context of whether a section 21 notice was valid, a High Court decision concerning whether a property was held on constructive trust or whether there was a transaction at an undervalue, a case on the remedy for failure to disclose a moth infestation and a case on the interplay between online planning practice guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework in considering whether there were other ‘reasonably available’ sites for housing in the context of flood risk.

Building Safety Act 2022—application of the ‘just and equitable’ test for remediation contribution orders

Construction analysis: Section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) allows the First-tier Tribunal to make remediation contribution orders (‘RCOs’) where it considers it ‘just and equitable’ to do so. In this article, Marcus Birch, consultant at BCLP, considers the recent First-tier Tribunal decision in Grey GR Ltd Partnership v Edgewater (Stevenage) and others which provides long-awaited guidance on how the tribunal will apply the ‘just and equitable’ test in fire safety cases involving large numbers of respondents.

Property held on constructive trust or transaction at undervalue? (Palmer and another (in their capacity as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Shaun Collins) v Sans)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court in Palmer and another (in their capacity as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Shaun Collins) v Sans deals with the question of whether the bankrupt (Mr Collins) held the property being Flat 2, Chestnut House, Whimbrel, London, SE28 8JE (the property), on trust for the respondent (Mr Sans) as at the time it was acquired by the bankrupt in 2013. The High Court held that the particular facts of this case support the creation of a trust, such that the property was held on a constructive trust for the benefit of the respondent. As the beneficial interest was already vested in the respondent, the legal transfer was irrelevant under section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), as on the true analysis, the transfer was merely a formality. Accordingly, the trustees in bankruptcy’s application pursuant to IA 1986, s 339 failed. Written by Katherine Traynor, barrister at Landmark Chambers.