Supreme Court grants permission to appeal to M&S in break notice dispute

In a June 2014 article "No Express Right to Refund upon Exercise of Break Clause", we reported upon the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited and another [2014] EWCA Civ 603, in which the Court of Appeal held that in absence of an express term to the contrary, a tenant of a commercial property who had exercised a break clause was not entitled to a refund of rent, insurance rent and the car parking charge which related to the period after the break date.

In a surprising twist, the Supreme Court has recently granted Marks & Spencer Plc permission to appeal that decision. It is unlikely that the appeal will be heard for many months. However, the judgement of the Supreme Court could be of interest not only to Landlords and Tenant, but also to contracting parties generally given that a key issue in dispute throughout the case was that of implied terms.

Updates on the case will be provided as the case develops.

This article is for general guidance only. It provides useful information in a concise form. Action should not be taken without obtaining specific legal advice.