header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 January 2016 / Julia Petrenko , Jamie Sutherland
Issue: 7681 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Back on the buses

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7681_sutherland_0

The officious bystander rides (the Clapham omnibus) again: Jamie Sutherland & Julia Petrenko on implied terms after Marks and Spencer v Paribas

The recent Supreme Court decision in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited and Another [2015] UKSC 72, [2015] All ER (D) 24 (Dec) dealt with that perennial source of contentious work for the landlord and tenant specialist, a tenant’s break clause in a commercial lease. However, the decision was of wide-reaching interest for its treatment of the law of implied terms: the Supreme Court were divided as to the continuing authority of Lord Hoffmann’s analysis of implied terms in Attorney General of Belize and Others v Belize Telecom Limited [2009] UKPC 10, [2009] 2 All ER 1127; and the result has been to confirm that implying a term is as difficult now as it ever was.

The decision in Marks and Spencer

Marks and Spencer concerned four commercial leases, effectively in identical form. Each lease provided for rent to be payable quarterly in advance on the usual quarter days. Clause 8 contained a tenant’s break

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
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll