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
Sponsored by
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll