In a challenging economic climate, we usually see an increase in leases ending prematurely, either by agreement or by landlords irritating (forfeiting) the lease when they are faced with an insolvent tenant or bad payers. Tenants in these circumstances will often leave behind goods and equipment. The temptation for landlords is just to throw the stuff away so they can re-let but there are restrictions on what a landlord can and can't do with abandoned goods in Scotland.

What should you do if a tenant leaves goods behind at the premises (tenant not insolvent)?

Floating charges are common features of finance transactions both in Scotland and in England, and share some characteristics, but these securities have different origins (the Scottish floating charge is a creation of statute while the English floating charge derives from common law) and other key differences which we outline below.

King v Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund [2023] EWHC 1408 (Ch) deals with a number of bases on which Susan King, James King and Anthony King each applied to set aside statutory demands for £219,700.00 made by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund. That sum was payable under an interim costs order made against the Kings by Cockerill J following a successful strike out of conspiracy proceedings. Those in turn arose out of a misrepresentation case.

The question for the court in Durkan & Anor v Jones (Re Nicholas Mark Jones) [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch) was whether it had jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order.

There are many enforcement options available to commercial landlords in England & Wales, to recover rent arrears due under a lease from a business tenant. Some of those options are based in contract and governed by the terms of the individual lease itself, such as a power to forfeit or damages for breach, whilst some of those options are based in statute such as the Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery regime.

Official Receiver v Kelly (Re Walmley Ash Ltd and Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986) [2023] EWHC 1181 (Ch) deals with an application for a disqualification order under s 6 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against Andrew John Kelly arising out of his conduct as a director of Walmsley Ash Ltd which was wound up by the court on an HMRC petition in 2017. The conduct relied on was that:

Modular construction has been heralded for several years now as a construction methodology that saves time, reduces waste and minimises cost. It is therefore unsurprising that modular construction forms part of the various "modern methods of construction" that are now being encouraged by the UK Government. Use of modular construction can range from isolated elements like bathroom pods to where the majority of the building is comprised of modules and is commonly encountered in housing, student accommodation and hotels.

City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) was a successful appeal against the decision of the district judge below to dismiss a winding up petition on several bases: first that the court had no jurisdiction to make an order because arrangements between the parties were subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, secondly because they provided for the application of Hong Kong law rather than English law, thirdly by reason of disputes regarding certain other contractual terms, and finally by reason of an issue as to whether the company had a viable cross claim.

The judgment of Adam Johnson J in Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd, (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1141 (Ch) demonstrates again the rigorous approach the courts are taking in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions required to “cram down” dissenting creditors in restructuring plans as well as in the exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction them.

A claim under s 127 is restitutionary (see Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Ahmed v Ingram), and in a case involving the payment of money is for unjust enrichment (see Officeserve Technologies Ltd v Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd).