The case of SBP 2 S.À.R.L v 2 Southbank Tenant Limited [2025] EWHC 16 (Ch) highlights the importance of careful drafting and robust legal advice when looking to forfeit a lease.

Background

With the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill having received Royal Assent, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s real estate litigation team sets out below an overview of the restrictions now coming into force.

There are restrictions on the service of statutory demands and winding-up petitions where a debtor company is unable to pay sums claimed due to coronavirus, which are due to expire on 31 March 2022.

With the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (the Bill) now in its final stages, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s real estate litigation team sets out below an overview of the new restrictions that will come into force when the Bill is given Royal Assent.

Current restrictions

It may first be beneficial to review the current moratorium that is in place. The majority of these restrictions expire on 25 March 2022 and the insolvency restrictions expire on 31 March 2022 but, until those dates, the following apply:

Not only was 4 May Star Wars Day this year, it was also the day The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’) came into force.

In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.

The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.

Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.

Ashfords successfully acted for the Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Vincent Mascarenhas (deceased) in their application to discharge Freezing Orders, an Interim Charging Order and an Interim Third Party Debt Order obtained by creditors of the late Bankrupt in 2014. The Joint Trustees were not a party to the original proceedings but had standing to make the applications.