Breaking up is hard to do

As the property group’s sole trainee, I am given tasks from both the commercial and residential sub-groups.  Recently, I was tasked with reviewing and summarising the terms of a tenant break clause for a client who wanted to exercise it to end their lease early.

A key issue was that the lease did not include an express provision for the refund of rent paid in advance of the break date.  The tenant paid on a quarterly basis and the break date fell just after a quarter day.  It is well established law that, for any such refund, there must be an express provision for repayment by apportionment of rent paid in advance. 

At the same time that I was researching this area, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the long-running case of Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and another [2015] UKSC 72 (2 December 2015), which confirmed this position.

Background

Marks and Spencer (“M&S”) was the tenant under four identical subleases running from 25 January 2006 to 2 February 2018.  The landlord was BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (“BNP Paribas”).  Rent was payable on a quarterly basis and the leases contained a provision for a tenant’s break clause if M&S gave BNP Paribas 6 months’ prior written notice before the set break dates.  For the break clause to take effect, there had to be no rent arrears and M&S were to pay the landlord one year’s rent.  Crucially, there was no provision in the leases requiring BNP Paribas to refund any overpayment of rent at the break date. 

M&S served a break notice on the landlord to determine the lease on 24 January 2012 and subsequently paid the quarterly rent for the period 25 December 2011 to 24 March 2012 and the one year’s rent, as required.  Consequently the break notice was effective and the lease determined on 24 January 2012. 

M&S then brought a claim against BNP Paribas primarily for the recovery of the overpayment of rent for the period between the effective break date, 24 January 2012, and the next quarter day, 25 March 2012.  M&S was successful at first instance, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.  M&S appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.  One of M&S’s main arguments was that such a term was implied by certain wording in the lease.  However, the Supreme Court confirmed that a term should only be implied if required for business efficacy or if it passed the officious bystander test, i.e. the implied term is so obvious that it goes without saying.  

In this case, the parties had carefully and fully considered the content of the leases, including the provisions of the break clause.  Other provisions providing for payments between the parties on the operation of the break clause highlighted this careful consideration and therefore it would be inappropriate for the court to imply any further terms. 

The Lords additionally looked at the apportionment of rent payable in advance and confirmed that, unless there is express provision for this, any overpayment of rent was not repayable except under exceptional circumstances.  The Lords pointed out that this principle had been the same when the leases were entered into by the parties and that the leases were both full and professionally drafted. 

This judgment serves as a reminder of the existing law relating to repayment of rent paid in advance and the importance of providing for this expressly in the lease to ensure that the tenant is able to recover on the operation of a break clause.

Posted by Katherine Yu, trainee in the property practice group.

Katherine started her training contract with B P Collins in May 2015, after joining the firm as a paralegal in April 2015. Katherine graduated from the University of St Andrews with a joint honours degree in International Relations and Modern History. She went on to study the Graduate Diploma in Law at the College of Law and the Legal Practice Course at BPP in Holborn.

Obsession with Concession (Agreements)

Legal update seminars aside, airports are probably the most exciting places in the world! And what's the number one thing to do in that exciting place? It's got to be duty free shopping. Nothing is more thrilling than purchasing your seventh pair of overpriced sunglasses for that long-awaited stag weekend in Tallinn. You know you don't need them, but it's duty free! You have to spend to save! Well, millions of other poor souls think just like us, which is why it's big business for retailers. So big, in fact, that a retailer will enter into a particularly onerous agreement with an airport just to have a concession there.

You will often find that when a retailer enters into a concession agreement with an airport, or a huge shopping centre, it pretty much has to agree to their standard terms and the retailer will have very little bargaining power. Although this can be frustrating for the lawyer trying to negotiate on their behalf, there is often very little that can be done, the retailer has to either take it or leave it.

A concession agreement is essentially a licence, rather than a lease, there is no landlord and tenant relationship (and so any statute that is designed to protect a tenant will probably not apply) and the 'concessionaire' has no right on the land. You are simply given the right to trade on someone else's property.

I was recently asked to interpret some clauses in a three-year concession agreement that our client had entered into with an airport. The client is a very well-known clothing brand. Whilst the clauses mainly related to VAT (I can sense you're dangerously close to the edge of your seat!) the agreement as a whole was really interesting.

I was amazed to see how onerous it was. For example, not only was the client obliged to pay an initial fee for entering into the agreement, but the airport also takes approximately 25% from their sales revenue. This percentage remains the same for all three years, but the minimum amount that the airport was guaranteed would increase, from £229,000 in year 1 to £270,000 in year 3.

On top of the prescribed trading week and minimum trading hours; the client was required to keep very detailed sales and footfall data which the airport had the right to inspect on demand. They are  obliged to show the duty free price of its merchandise and compare it to the high street price, clearly stating the amount that customers save; at its own cost and they had to operate the 'Shop and Drop' scheme (where your shopping mysteriously and beautifully appears at your departure gate waiting for you to collect it).

It doesn't stop there, as the client has to implement any of the airport's points-based loyalty schemes, then should the airport ever create a Facebook page, they are contractually obliged to 'like' it moreover if the airport ever create a Twitter account, they had to 'follow' it (the latter two are real, by the way). I could go on, but you get the gist.

Whether you're a Paralegal, Trainee, Solicitor or Partner acting on behalf of a business, it's essential to understand the commercial realities that clients face. Our client knew it had very little bargaining power but it relied on its own calculations and projected sales to decide whether such a restrictive agreement would be cost-effective.

It was only when I was asked to work on this concession agreement that I fully realised how this was one of the less obvious examples of a really interesting legal relationship coupled with sound commercial judgement. From a lawyer's point of view, it also shows how important it is not to lose sight of the client's commercial objectives.

When every part of your legal brain wants to shout "NO! Don't sign, it's a terrible contract" you have to respect that ultimately, it is the client's decision. Our role is to highlight the terms of the contract and ensure the client is fully informed before deciding whether to enter into it.

So the next time you're in the departure lounge coating yourself with perfume testers, it may be worth considering what's happening in the background. There's usually a legal and commercial reason for everything.   

Posted by Rajiv Malhotra, trainee in the property practice.

      

Rajiv graduated with LLB (Hons) from the University of Birmingham in 2007, before completing the Legal Practice Certificate at BPP Law School in London. After acting as a Legal Assistant with a large Watford firm, Rajiv joined B P Collins in April 2012 as a paralegal before beginning his training contract in September 2013.