ARTICLE
19 December 2006

Leases: Agreements Outside The Lease

CC
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang

Contributor

CMS is a Future Facing firm with 79 offices in over 40 countries and more than 5,000 lawyers globally. Combining local market insight with a global perspective, CMS provides business-focused advice to help clients navigate change confidently. The firm's expertise and innovative approach anticipate challenges and develop solutions. CMS is committed to diversity, inclusivity, and corporate social responsibility, fostering a supportive culture. The firm addresses key client concerns like efficiency and regulatory challenges through services like Law-Now, offering real-time eAlerts, mobile access, an extensive legal archive, specialist zones, and global events.

A recent case has highlighted the difficulties that can arise when a landlord agrees to grant a concession but for various reasons does not want to include this in the lease. Often such concessions will be in the form of side letters or separate deeds and these are very likely to bind future owners of the landlord’s interest.
United Kingdom Real Estate and Construction

A recent case has highlighted the difficulties that can arise when a landlord agrees to grant a concession but for various reasons does not want to include this in the lease. Often such concessions will be in the form of side letters or separate deeds and these are very likely to bind future owners of the landlord’s interest. What happens when the concession is set out in the correspondence prior to the grant of the lease?

The tenant here agreed that it would surrender a lease that still had many years to run. In return, the landlord would grant a new shorter lease and would not serve a schedule of dilapidations at the end of that shorter lease. The landlord’s agreement was set out in emails and letters confirming that a schedule would not be served. The lease did not reflect the agreement.

The landlord sold his interest and the new landlord issued proceedings against the tenant for breach of the repairing covenant. The tenant argued that it had relied on the original landlord’s assurances about dilapidations and therefore the new landlord had no right to enforce the repairing covenants in the lease.

The High Court held that it was clear from the communications between the landlord and tenant before the lease was completed that the landlord’s assurances were not to be overridden by the terms of the lease. The assurances amounted to a contract collateral to the lease and continued to bind future owners.

This decision shows the difficulty that surrounds the area of concessions that are not recorded in the main documentation. Do they bind future owners, do they need to be registered at the Land Registry, and have buyers discovered all such arrangements that may affect their ownership?

Before making any side arrangements the parties should think whether they are personal, and whether there is any real reason why they should not be included in the main documentation.

Further reading: Business Environment Bow Land Limited -v- Deanwater Estates Limited 5 December 2006

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 18/12/2006.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More