Nick Knapman & Stephen Dean ask how unequivocal is “unequivocal conduct” when it comes to
surrender by operation of law
Surrender, and specifically, surrender by operation of law is generally well understood as a legal principle. Yet it is a principle that continues to come regularly before the courts and, as the recent Court of Appeal decision in QFS Scaffolding v Sable [2010] EWCA Civ 682, [2010] All ER (D) 158 (Jun) has confirmed, the conduct of the parties is central to determining whether or not there has been a valid surrender by operation of law. Only where that conduct is unequivocal and entirely unambiguous will the test be satisfied.
The increase in court attention is almost certainly a sign of the times: many leases do not run their full term during an economic downturn. Surrender offers an apparently quick and convenient way of bringing about the early end of a lease. Surrender can be either express (requiring a deed in accordance with s 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925), or by operation of law. It is the absence of any
