Hot topic in negotiations - the 1927 Act compensation trap
Importantly, this statutory obligation cannot be contracted out — any clause purporting to exclude the obligation to pay this compensation is void.
In practice, the issue arises most acutely where:
- A tenant (often an investor) has taken a bare or cleared site from the landlord under a long lease and constructed a logistics unit or warehouse at its own cost; and
- The lease provides for reinstatement or 'shell and core' hand-back, but the improvements (i.e. the building itself) qualify as 'improvements' for the purpose of the 1927 Act.
This creates a tension between the contractual reinstatement obligation and the statutory compensation right. To avoid exposure, landlords should:
- Carefully document that the works are to be treated as landlord’s works or otherwise outside the 1927 Act regime (for instance, by way of a development or agreement for lease structure, the long leasehold interest in land only being granted once the building has been built);
- Require tenants to waive claims to compensation 'so far as the law permits', though this option is not devoid of risk; and
- Ensure the lease and licence-for-works documentation properly categorise the improvements and record the parties’ intentions regarding ownership and reinstatement.
We have seen a number of situations where landlords inadvertently faced potential compensation claims worth millions at expiry, simply because the works had been authorised under a standard licence and no distinction was drawn between repair and improvement. This is rapidly becoming a negotiation hotspot in the logistics development market. Our litigation team have created bespoke provisions to be included in such circumstances to protect our landlord / investor clients.