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
  • 13 February 2025
  • Public Procurement

Procurement Act 2023 – Coming into force on 24 February 2025

After a four-month delay from its original commencement date of 28 October 2024, the new Procurement Act 2023 is now due to come into force later this month on 24 February 2025.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

What are restrictive covenants and how do they relate to the planning system?

Restrictive covenants on use can be one of the more problematic aspects of a property transaction. Even if the restrictive covenants do not affect one’s development plans for the land, they may be an issue for subsequent buyers or future lenders.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Immigration

Skilled Worker New Entrant Exemption – is it a good investment?

The “new entrant” exemption under the UK Skilled Worker Visa is a vital but often underappreciated element of the immigration system. It offers valuable benefits to both employers and employees.

art
  • 12 February 2025
  • Employment

Balancing the Equality Act: Lessons from Higgs v Farmor’s School

The Court of Appeal have today issued a judgment in the Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School case, in which it has ruled that the actions of the school in dismissing Ms Higgs for expressing LGBT+ critical posts on her personal Facebook account, was unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.

Pub
  • 10 February 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Frequently asked questions on data retention

In this podcast, Jesse Akiwumi and Harry Berryman, members of the Data Protection team at Clarkslegal, address the top frequently asked questions we receive about data retention.

art
  • 10 February 2025
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

We are living in a material world, but am I a material breach?

In this article we will be looking at the meaning of these different types of breach.