Supreme Court case considering the effect of a break clause contained in sub-underleases of different floors of a building known as “The Point” in London.

M&S let the property from BNP and the rent was paid quarterly in advance. When M&S exercised the break clause, the lease came to an end on 24 January 2012. M&S then brought a claim for return of the apportioned rent in respect of the period from 25 January 2012 to 24 March 2012.

There was no express term in the lease which entitled the tenant to repayment of the rent. However, M&S argued that a term should be implied into the lease.

The Supreme Court dismissed M&S’s appeal.

The Court confirmed that a term will only be implied into a contract if it satisfies the case of business necessity or is so obvious that it goes without saying.  It was noted that, although rent payable in arrears is apportionable under the Apportionment Act 1870, the 1870 Act does not apply to rent payable in advance and that common law authorities do not provide for rent (whether paid in arrears or advance) to be apportioned. The court then reached the conclusion that (aside from in very exceptional circumstances) an express term would require to be included in the lease to entitle a tenant to a refund of rent paid in advance.

Lord Neuberger said the following:

“Save in a very clear case indeed, it would be wrong to attribute to a landlord and a tenant, particularly when they have entered into a full and professionally drafted lease, an intention that the tenant should receive an apportioned part of the rent payable and paid in advance, when the non-apportionability of such rent has been so long and clearly established. Given that it is so clear that the effect of the caselaw is that rent payable and paid in advance can be retained by the landlord, save in very exceptional circumstances (eg where the contract could not work or would lead to an absurdity) express words would be needed before it would be right to imply a term to the contrary.”

The full judgement is available from the Supreme Court here.

Background
Sheriff Court case concerning an action for recovery of possession of a shop premises in Edinburgh. The shop was let on a 25 year full repairing and insuring lease commencing in December 2002.

The lease contained a clause stating: ‘[t]he weekly rent shall be payable by Bank Standing Order to the Landlord’. However, in practice, the rent was paid in cash. The landlord kept rent diaries which recorded the dates when rent was paid and the dates when rent was not paid. On 31 March 2014 the landlord terminated the lease after following the irritancy procedure in respect of 35 weeks of unpaid rent. The landlord then raised an action to recover both possession of the shop and the unpaid rent.

The tenant argued that the rent had been paid in full. In response to the landlord’s evidence that it had not, the tenant pointed to the provision in the lease for the rent to be paid by standing order and the lack of bank records or accounts showing how the rent was received, rent receipts or a rent book.

Decision
After hearing evidence from various parties, the sheriff preferred the evidence of the landlord and his witnesses and granted decree in the landlord’s favour. With regard to the clause indicating that the rent would be paid by standing order, the sheriff found that it meant that the landlord would be bound to accept rent paid by standing order if the tenant paid by that means. However, it did not prevent the landlord from dealing in cash if the tenant wished to pay that way.

As regards the evidence produced by the tenant, the sheriff said the following:

 “In my judgement it was always open to the [tenant] to organise his business affairs in such a way that he could pay the rent by standing order and be in a position to demonstrate he paid the rent regularly and was up to date. I consider this is basic business management. It is his responsibility to organise his business affairs in such a way that he can at least demonstrate he pays the rent. His own parole evidence in my opinion was worthless. The onus of proof is on the [landlord] to prove his case but the fact that the [tenant] is incapable of clearly demonstrating something as basic as regular rent payments, in my view, makes it easier to accept the [landlord]’s case which is at least based on a system, primitive though it may be.”

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.