The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

The case of Hull v Campbell serves as a reminder of an outmoded debt recovery procedure that needs to be modernised.

In the current economic climate, landlords are having to deal more frequently with tenants who are in administration. Where the administrators of the tenant are using the property for the purposes of the administration, the moratorium on forfeiture and irritancy proceedings that applies in administrations means that the landlords are unlikely to be able to recover the property in order to relet it.

Background

The law in relation to landlord's hypothec underwent significant changes on 1 April 2008 when the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 abolished sequestration for rent and instead provided that the hypothec was to rank as a security in an insolvency procedure.

Since 1 April 2008 certain issues have arisen out of ambiguities in the legislation. These issues have become apparent particularly in administrations. This note looks at:

Many commercial landlords will currently be dealing with issues arising out of their tenants' financial difficulties, in particular the impact of insolvency proceedings. For tenants who are in administration, a moritorium applies, which will prevent a landlord taking action against the tenant without leave from the Court. Generally, the Courts will have a degree of sympathy for landlords, and will afford significant weight to the landlords’ proprietary rights when deciding whether to allow landlords to commence proceedings against a tenant.

The Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007contains a wide range of provisions affecting personal insolvency and various forms of diligence for enforcing civil obligations. Many of the provisions that relate to Inhibitions – which apply to heritable property - will come into force on 22 April 2009. Generally these reforms are to be welcomed.

An inhibition enables a creditor to prevent a debtor from transferring ownership of any of the debtor’s heritable property located in Scotland, or granting a security over it while the debt remains outstanding.

The insolvency legislation has laid the foundations for a rescue approach towards companies, which are facing insolvency. One such regime is administration. The administrator is sometimes referred to as the "company doctor". The administrator is given extensive powers to administer the affairs of the company in order to save the company from being wound up or at least, to maximise the financial position for the company's creditors.

The recent downturn in the economy is undoubtedly having an adverse effect on the cash flows of a large number of businesses in the UK. Businesses are keeping a much closer eye on outgoings and expenses, and may be looking to ease financial pressure by making payments due to creditors as late as possible.

For a business operating from leased premises, quarterly rental payments are likely to be one of the biggest outgoings. The longer the rental payment remains in the tenant's bank account, the more interest they will accrue and the more likely that cash flow issues will be eased.

The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.

A recent decision from the High Court has shed some light on the remedies available to landlords under insolvency legislation against tenants who enter into administration. The decision provides useful guidance on the ability of a landlord to exercise its right of forfeiture.