FRUSTRATION FRUSTRATED
Frustration frustrated? The English High Court in Into Nominee One Ltd v Study Group UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 1201 (TCC) considers the limits of frustration in the context of a lease agreement, where the premise was fraught with life-threatening defects
The English High Court in Into Nominee One Ltd v Study Group UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 1201 (TCC) considered whether a long commercial lease was frustrated by the discovery of serious fire safety defects. The answer was no.
The decision is a reminder that frustration remains a narrow doctrine. Even where premises are unsafe and unusable for their intended purpose, a tenant may still be held to the lease if the contract has allocated the relevant risk on to the tenant.
Background. The dispute concerned Voyager House, a purpose-built residential training school in Brighton. The premises consisted of an academic block and a residential block.
The landlords were Into Nominee One Limited and Into Nominee Two Limited. Study Group UK Limited (“SGUK”) was the tenant.
The landlords applied for summary judgment for unpaid rent and other sums. SGUK resisted the application on the basis that the lease had been frustrated.
The gravamen of SGUK’s case was straightforward. Voyager House contained serious fire safety defects. The defects were described as “life-critical”: see [5] of the judgment. They affected the external walls, cladding, fire-stopping and internal compartmentation. SGUK’s own expert evidence was that the buildings were unsafe to occupy for educational purposes: see [17] – [22] of the judgment.
SGUK said that the common purpose of the lease was for the premises to be used as a residential school or college. The discovery of the defects meant that the premises could not be used for that purpose. On SGUK’s case, the lease had therefore been frustrated: see [93] of the judgment.
For the purpose of the summary judgment application, the Court accepted that the defects were serious: see [25(7)] of the judgment. It also accepted that the remedial works would probably take about 2.5 years, and possibly longer: see [25(8)] of the judgment. Further, the premises were unlikely to be usable for academic purposes before the lease ran its course: see [25(11)] of the judgment.
Despite that, the Court held that SGUK had no real prospect of establishing frustration.
The law on frustration. The Court applied orthodox principles. Frustration occurs where, to put it in layman’s terms, without the fault of either party, performance (if carried out) would be radically different from what was contemplated by the contract: see [113]-[114] of the judgment.
The Court also noted that frustration can, in principle, apply to leases. That was settled by the House of Lords in National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] AC 675: see [45] of the judgment.
However, the doctrine is rarely available in the context of leases. The Court observed that there appeared to be no case in which frustration had been successfully invoked in respect of a lease, as opposed to an agreement for lease: see [69] of the judgment.
This matters because leases are long-term risk allocation instruments. The longer the term, the more likely it is that the parties must be taken to have contemplated that circumstances may change: see [71] of the judgment.
Importantly, the Court observed that the doctrine of frustration cannot be invoked where the event relied upon was foreseen by the parties: see [128] of the judgment.
The Lease Agreement. Turning to the terms of the lease agreement, they severely undermined SGUK’s claim for frustration.
For reference, we set out below the pertinent provisions from the lease agreement:
Clause 3.7 (the tenant’s repairing lease clause): “To keep the Demised Premises in good and substantial repair and condition and whenever necessary to rebuild reconstruct renew or replace the whole of the Demised Premises or any part thereof (except only damage by risks and which the Landlord has insured save where the insurance monies are irrecoverable in consequence of any act or default of the Tenant) and to renew and replace from time to time all landlord’s fixtures and fittings and appurtenances in the Demised Premises which may become or be beyond repair at any time during or at the expiration or soon determination of the Term …”
Clause 5.2 (the Insured Risks clause): “Fire, terrorism, lightning, explosion, impact, storm, tempest, flood, bursting and overflowing of water tanks apparatus or pipes, impact from aircraft and other aerial devices and any particle dropped therefrom, subsidence, heave, landslip, earthquake, riot, civil commotion, strikes, locked-out workers and malicious persons, and such other risks as the Landlord shall in its reasonable discretion determine.”
Clause 6.5 (No warranty clause): “The Landlord gives no warranty express or implied that the use of the Demised Premises or any part thereof for any specific purpose is authorised under the Planning Acts or otherwise or that the Demised Premises or any part thereof are suitable for the purposes of the Tenant or for any purpose.”
With regards to Clause 3.7, the Court held that the prescribed obligation was “very wide”, so as to include the obligation on SGUK to remedy any latent defects, including those which are “of such a nature to require rebuilding of the whole of the Premises”: see [121] – [122] of the judgment.
Notably, the Court observed that the Insured Risks caveat in Clause 3.7 indicated that the parties “turned their minds to the sort of situation … the consequence of such events will be borne by the insurers”: see [124] of the judgment. This signified that SGUK bore the risks of eventualities arising outside the scope of the caveat.
With regards to Clause 6.5, the Court plainly held that the landlord gave no warranty that the premises are suitable for SGUK, or for any purpose for that matter: see [127] of the judgment.
Hence, these clauses were fatal to the frustration defence. The clauses, properly interpreted, supported the view that SGUK took the relevant risk of fire safety defects in the premises so as to prevent its use for educational purposes: see [130] of the judgment.
And the Singapore position is essentially identical. In Win Supreme Investment (S) Pte Ltd v Joharah Bte Abdul Wahab (Sjarikat Bekerjasama Perumahan Kebangsaan Singapura, third party) [1996] 3 SLR(R) 583 (“Win Supreme”), the High Court held that the doctrine of frustration does not apply where a particular eventuality, which a party seeks to rely on to ground a claim for frustration, was foreseeable: see [33] of Win Supreme.
Practical implications. Into Nominees is a strong reminder that frustration is not an easy escape route from a bad bargain.
First, frustration remains difficult to establish in leases. The fact that premises become unusable, even for a long period, will not necessarily discharge the lease.
Second, the Court will look closely at contractual risk allocation. Full repairing obligations, statutory compliance clauses, insurance provisions and no-warranty clauses can make establishing a case of frustration extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Third, tenants taking long leases of newly constructed premises should not assume that latent defects always remain the landlord’s risk. If that is the intended bargain, it should be spelt out expressly.
For tenants, the decision underlines the importance of negotiating express protection for latent defects, fire safety defects, rent suspension, termination rights and landlord remediation obligations.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication. Chancery Law Corporation is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance based on this publication.