First, the not-so-great news in figures:

The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 provided tenants in the retail and leisure sectors who had subsisting rent arrears incurred between March 2020 and August 2021 with immunity against enforcement action from landlords. However, that immunity was only for a period of 6 months from March 2022. During that window, either landlord or tenant were able to refer the matter to arbitration if they did not come to a commercial settlement.

The final date for arbitration referrals was 23 September 2022.

• Commercial rent arrears continue to accumulate as a result of the pandemic, such that arrears are estimated to reach £9 billion by March 2022 and comprise a much larger slice of the typical debt stack than they did pre-pandemic.
• The UK government has proposed a binding arbitration scheme to help resolve the arrears and further extend the existing protections from enforcement and insolvency procedures that

In addition to the extension to the commercial eviction ban until 30 June 2021, the UK Government has now also extended the moratorium on commencing winding-up proceedings until 30 June 2021.

You may view the regulation from the UK Government at gov.uk.

“Government gives businesses much-needed breathing space with extension of insolvency measures”

The UK government has announced an extension of the following temporary insolvency measures introduced by Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA), 2020.

Highlights include:

We know that landlords have been waiting to find out how they can legitimately pursue arrears from their tenants. It’s been a long wait for the publication of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill.

Insofar as commercial property rent claims are concerned, the crucial points are:

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.