Commercial Real Estate
Owner Managed Businesses
Sophie Levitt, Alex King
June 2026
A High Court dispute between John Lewis and the landlords of Brent Cross has put a fundamental question under the spotlight: when retail evolves, do legacy leases evolve with it?
At the centre of the case is whether click-and-collect sales should count towards turnover rent, a model where tenants pay a base rent plus a percentage of store-generated revenue.
It might sound technical. In practice, it goes to the heart of how modern, omnichannel businesses operate.
The background: a lease from another era
The dispute stems from a 1979 lease, agreed decades before online shopping existed.
Under that lease, John Lewis pays a base rent plus a percentage of “gross receipts” once turnover passes certain thresholds. The definition of those receipts includes orders “received or filled at or from the premises”, language originally designed to capture mail and telephone sales.
Today, that wording is being stress-tested against click-and-collect.
The landlords argue that online orders collected in-store, fulfilled from the store, or even initiated in-store should be captured as turnover. John Lewis takes the opposite view: that the sale happens when goods leave the distribution centre, meaning the store is simply a collection point.
Same clause. Very different commercial consequences.
Why this matters
This is more than a rent dispute. It reflects a broader tension between legacy contracts and modern business models.
Retail is no longer neatly split between “in-store” and “online”. For many businesses, the customer journey spans both, browsing online, purchasing digitally, collecting in person.
The problem is that many leases were never drafted with that reality in mind. As this case shows, even seemingly clear wording can become ambiguous when applied to new channels.
So what does this mean in practice for businesses?
- Old drafting creates modern risk
Leases that pre-date e-commerce often rely on broad wording intended to capture indirect sales. That same wording may now be argued to include click-and-collect or other omnichannel activity, depending on how it’s interpreted. - Data is now part of the deal
Turnover rent only works if sales can be tracked and attributed clearly. In an omnichannel model, that means distinguishing between online, in-store, fulfilled-from-store and fulfilment-centre transactions. Without that clarity, disputes become almost inevitable. - Commercial positions are diverging
Landlords are increasingly focused on capturing value linked to physical space, particularly where stores play a role in fulfilment or customer experience. Tenants, meanwhile, are focused on ringfencing digital revenue and avoiding double counting.
This case is a reminder that leases are not static documents. Where turnover rent is in play, both sides are now expected to grapple explicitly with omnichannel trading, from click-and-collect to delivery, returns and fulfilment.
Because in modern retail, where a sale is made is no longer obvious. And if it isn’t clear in the lease, it will be argued later.
For more details of this case see our article here.
