Tata Steel Limited (Tata) has been intending to end their British operations for some time. As yet, it has been unable to do so as its subsidiary, Tata Steel UK (TSUK), is the principal employer of one of the UK’s largest defined benefit (DB) schemes. The obligations and liabilities under the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) have been deemed by prospective buyers as too great to take on with the Scheme currently running at a deficit of approximately £700 million.

Introduction

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.

This recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is one of the first to examine how the insolvency provisions in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) should apply and, in particular, the circumstances in which employment liabilities passed under TUPE to the buyer of the assets of an insolvent company.

Facts

This case involved a "pre-pack" administration.

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 Court of Appeal in Haine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform has held that where redundancies are made in breach of obligations to carry out collective consultation and the employer then goes into insolvency, a protective award subsequently ordered by an employment tribunal is a debt in the liquidation.

Impact on employers

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.