This case concerned a tenant’s attempt to exercise a break clause in a commercial lease. One of the conditions of the break was that the tenant carried out certain work to separate the premises from adjoining premises which it retained. The parties entered an agreement that the tenant would pay a sum of money in lieu of carrying out the work, and the landlord accepted possession back immediately. By oversight the tenant failed to pay the agreed sum by the specified date. The landlord argued that payment by the due date was a condition precedent to operation of the break. The tenant argued that the agreement replaced the conditions in the break clause, and that time was not of the essence.
It was held that the obligations in the agreement remained conditions precedent, and that the lease therefore continued.
Thomas acted for the tenant.