Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 JULY 2013

Break Notice Content: Comply Or Die?

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Contributor
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Charles Russell Speechlys is an international law firm with a focus on private capital, at the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Following hot on the heels from the High Court decision in "Marks and Spencer Plc v (1) BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company Limited and (2) BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company Limited [2013] EWHC 1279" comes another key decision affecting the exercise of break options.

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction

Following hot on the heels from the High Court decision in Marks and Spencer Plc v (1) BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited and (2) BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company Limited [2013] EWHC 1279 (Ch) comes another key decision affecting the exercise of break options.

Introduction

In Siemens Hearing Instruments Limited v Friends Life Limited (12 July 2013), the High Court was called on to decide an issue on the construction of break notices. Its analysis represents a shift from the strict acceptance of all requirements specified in the lease as to what should be included within a break notice and demonstrates that the parties should always consider the contents of a break option with the utmost care before either serving the notice or choosing to challenge its validity.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from