The recent case of Vanquish Properties (UK) Ltd v Brook
Street (UK) Ltd provides a useful reminder that a limited
partnership ("LP") has no legal personality and that
property cannot, therefore, be held in the name of an LP.
What is a limited partnership?
An LP is similar to an ordinary partnership except that it must
be registered at Companies House and has two categories of partner:
general partners, with responsibility for managing the business and
with unlimited liability for the firm's debts and obligations;
and limited partners, who invest capital but do not take an active
role and whose liability is limited to the capital they have
Like an ordinary partnership an LP is not a legal entity –
it is simply a collection of individuals or companies carrying on a
How can a limited partnership hold property?
As an LP is not a legal entity, it cannot hold a legal estate in
land in the name of the LP. The legal owners of the LP's
property may be all of the individual partners; however, the legal
estate cannot be vested in more than four persons so an LP's
property will usually be held on trust by one or more nominees
(often the general partners).
It is essential that LPs get this right when buying property or
taking a lease; if an LP attempts to take a legal estate in land in
the name of the LP the estate will not be validly
The decision in Vanquish Properties (UK) Ltd v Brook Street
The LP in this case was Vanquish Properties (UK) Ltd Partnership
("VPLP"). It was made up of one general partner and four
The tenant, B, had a lease which contained a break clause
exercisable by the landlord (or its successors in title) on 27
September 2016, by giving not less than six months' notice. On
22 March 2016 the landlord granted an overriding lease to VPLP,
acting by its general partner. On the same day VPLP gave B notice
that it had become its direct landlord and served a break notice as
landlord under the lease, notifying B that the lease would
determine on 27 September.
B argued that the break notice was invalid because it was given
by a party who was not its landlord under the lease. The High Court
agreed, concluding that the lease could not have been granted to
VPLP as this is not possible in law. As such VPLP was not B's
landlord and could not validly serve the break notice.
This case serves as a reminder of the need to ensure that the
correct party is named in a lease or other property document. In
this case the lease should have been granted to the general partner
and up to three of the limited partners, on trust for all of the
partners. The break could then have been exercised in the same
name(s) and would have been valid. Alternatively, a commonly used
structure is the appointment of two nominee companies to hold the
property on trust for the LP.
Always take legal advice if you are in any doubt as to which
party should be named in any kind of document or notice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The use of letters of intent can be fraught with difficulty. In this Insight we review the key case law on letters of intent of the past few years and seek to highlight some of the lessons that can be learned from them.
On 29 March 2017, Lord Tyre of the Outer House of the Court of Session handed down an opinion in Bell Building Projects Limited v Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited and addressed the principle of natural justice in the adjudication arena.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).