Search

How can we help?

Icon

Vacant Possession: Do I have to remove partitions?

The exercise of break clauses can cause tenants great difficulty, especially where the break clause is subject to conditions.  It is common for break clauses to require “vacant possession” and it can be difficult for a tenant to know what exactly this requires them to do.  One question which comes up frequently is whether it is necessary to remove partitions in order to give vacant possession.

It will always be necessary to look at the terms of the lease and licence for alterations in every case.  However the general view until now has been that partitions are virtually always fixed to a building and that, if there is any substantial connection between the partition and the building it will be treated as a “fixture”.  This means that it becomes part of the leased premises and, unless there is a separate obligation to remove the partition in (for example) a licence for alterations, leaving such partitions behind will not prevent there being vacant possession.

In a case handed down at the end of July in the Leeds District Registry, Riverside Park Limited -v- NHS Property Services Limited, the court considered the impact of partitions on the delivery of vacant possession.  In that case the partitions were in the form of metal stud partitions with painted plasterboard connected to the building by screw fixings.  The partitions were not solidly fixed to the floor or the ceiling and the court was satisfied that they could be demounted intact and potentially used elsewhere.  This was despite the fact that within the partitioning there were air-conditioning units and electrical wiring and sockets.

The consequence of the court finding (which some will find surprising) that these partitions had not become fixtures was that they remained chattels.  The tenant was therefore obliged to remove them and had not done so.  The court was satisfied that they did substantially prevent or interfere with the possession of the property and that, as a result, the tenant had failed to deliver up vacant possession.

 

It is common for break clauses to require “vacant possession

This case highlights once again the uncertainty that can surround the exercise of break clauses and the considerable importance of taking advice before it is too late on what needs to be done to ensure full and proper compliance and avoid the expensive consequences of an ineffective attempts to break a lease.

For further information on break clauses that require vacant possession please contact our Real Estate team property@clarkslegal.com 

About this article

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 08 May 2025
  • Employment

Statutory Sick Pay Scheme changes: how can employers prepare for such changes?

The government has recently changed the Statutory Sick Pay provisions; it is anticipated that such changes will ‘help people to stay in work and grow the economy’.

Pub
  • 07 May 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Thinking of exiting your business? Part 1

In the first part of this three-part series, we explore why planning your exit strategy early can shape the way you build, grow, and eventually sell your business for maximum value. From mindset to strategy, we unpack how thinking about the end from the beginning can lead to smarter decisions and better outcomes.

Pub
  • 07 May 2025
  • Immigration

UK Immigration: Essential update for employers

The UK’s immigration system will see major changes in 2025. Watch our UK immigration specialists, Ruth Karimatsenga and Monica Mastropasqua, as they explore the key updates and how they affect your business.

art
  • 06 May 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Can a disclosure letter give rise to a misrepresentation claim?

Provided by a seller to a buyer, a disclosure letter is an important element in any business sale or purchase transaction.

art
  • 02 May 2025
  • Employment

Sex, Gender and the Law: What the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling Means for Employers

The recent UK Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers  UKSC 16 has generated significant attention, but for most employers, we would argue that its practical impact is relatively limited—at least for now.

art
  • 29 April 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Use of Personal Devices at Work: Why a Bring Your Own Device Policy is Essential

We will highlight in this article what changes have been made to the DUAB since the early stages of the Bill.