header-logo header-logo

09 September 2010 / Stephen Dean , Nick Knapman
Issue: 7432 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

No surrender?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll