Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited and another
No term should be implied into the lease requiring the landlords to refund apportioned rent paid in advance when the lease is determined by the tenant's break clause, given the established legal background, express provisions, and absence of business necessity.
- Parties
- Appellant: Marks and Spencer plc; Respondents: BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited and another
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 December 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Implied Terms, Apportionment of Rent, Break Clauses, Lease Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Marks and Spencer plc
Appellant
BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited and another
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a term should be implied into a commercial lease requiring landlords to refund apportioned rent paid in advance when the lease is determined by a tenant's break clause
- 2 Whether the Apportionment Act 1870 applies to rent paid in advance
- 3 Interpretation of implied terms in contracts
Ratio Decidendi
No term should be implied into the lease requiring the landlords to refund apportioned rent paid in advance when the lease is determined by the tenant's break clause, given the established legal background, express provisions, and absence of business necessity.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment