header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 September 2010 / Stephen Dean , Nick Knapman
Issue: 7432 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

No surrender?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
property_4

Nick Knapman & Stephen Dean ask how unequivocal is “unequivocal conduct” when it comes to
surrender by operation of law

Surrender, and specifically, surrender by operation of law is generally well understood as a legal principle. Yet it is a principle that continues to come regularly before the courts and, as the recent Court of Appeal decision in QFS Scaffolding v Sable [2010] EWCA Civ 682, [2010] All ER (D) 158 (Jun) has confirmed, the conduct of the parties is central to determining whether or not there has been a valid surrender by operation of law. Only where that conduct is unequivocal and entirely unambiguous will the test be satisfied.

The increase in court attention is almost certainly a sign of the times: many leases do not run their full term during an economic downturn. Surrender offers an apparently quick and convenient way of bringing about the early end of a lease. Surrender can be either express (requiring a deed in accordance with s 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925),

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll