Business rates liability is complex and the question of who is liable if occupiers become insolvent is one that often arises during periods of economic uncertainty, such as the pandemic.

Business rates liability for insolvent companies

Business rates liability attaches to specific units of property known as “hereditaments”.

Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd and others (Respondents) v Rossendale Borough Council and another (Appellants)

The Supreme Court has delivered its keenly anticipated judgment in a case concerning the validity of two business rates mitigation schemes. The schemes under scrutiny involved property owners letting unoccupied properties to special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) which benefitted from a business rates exemption and therefore allowed both the property owners and the SPVs to avoid liability for business rates.

As discussed in previousposts, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020, largely to address the harsh economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

With courts and government agencies around the world enacting emergency measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic – ranging from complete shutdowns to delays and limitations – advancing the ball in dispute resolution is more challenging than ever. Because fraud investigations and complex asset recovery matters are typically managed by litigation counsel and often follow litigated claims, clients have a tendency to see the effort through a litigation lens.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial

In a recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Weisfelner, v. Fund 1, et al. (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 159 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.