The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.

The case of Goldacre v Nortel, decided in December, has clarified the circumstances in which an administrator is liable to pay rent under a lease as an expense of an administration. If rent is an expense of the administration, the landlord will almost certainly be paid in full for as long as the administrator uses the property. If it is not such an expense, the landlord will be an unsecured creditor who will be lucky to receive a few pence in the pound.

A decision by the High Court in December has strengthened the position of landlords who sometimes do not get paid during the administration even where the administrator is running the business from the property.

Certain categories of expense which may be incurred by the company after it has gone into administration, and which an administrator has to pay are known as "expenses of the administration" and the assets of the company in administration must be applied towards payment of these expenses ahead of any payment to creditors under floating charges or to unsecured creditors.

1. Can I lock the tenant out of the property until they pay?

No. If a tenant has been placed in administration then there will be a moratorium in place. This gives a company some breathing space. Rights against the company, such as forfeiture or conducting legal proceedings, can only be pursued with either the consent of the administrator or a court order. As noted last week, changing the locks is likely to forfeit the lease. Unless you intend to forfeit and obtain the necessary permission to do so, you should not change the locks.  

In the last edition of Real Estate Update, we considered the position of a landlord wishing to keep the lease of premises to a company in administration ongoing and in what circumstances he will receive the full rent (ie 100 pence in the pound). If, however, the tenant is in administration and the landlord would like to bring the lease to an end, he would only be entitled to forfeit the lease if the administrator consents or the court grants an order giving him permission to do so.1

Where a landlord forfeits its lease, subject to any available relief or exemption, the landlord is liable to business rates in respect of the premises.

Empty premises business rates exemption will provide time-limited relief to a landlord who has re-entered premises. However, a landlord should be cautious of exercising its right to forfeit a lease in cases where it does not have another tenant "waiting in the wings".

The ratepayer

Business rates are paid by occupiers and, in certain circumstances, owners of premises.

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.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the court does have jurisdiction to grant a licensee (as opposed to a tenant) relief from forfeiture provided that the licensee has possessory or proprietary rights (Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1100).

Forfeiture and Relief from Forfeiture

1. Introduction

As a result of the failure of over 200 banks and savings institutions in 2009—and the likelihood of 300 or more failures in the foreseeable future—the banking industry may be faced with another tsunami of litigation brought by the FDIC alleging liability against officers and directors for the failure of their respective institutions.

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire has signed into law a series of changes to the state Receivership Act that will make it easier (and possibly cheaper) for creditors to utilize the Receivership Act as a tool to resolve troubled loan situations with their borrowers. The revisions will become effective 90 days after the Legislature adjourns, making July 24, 2011, the likely effective date. The changes clarify a number of points that previously puzzled both judges and practitioners.

Creditors' Rights