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
A review of Diana Loson v (1) Brett Stack (2) Newlyn PLC [2018] EWCA Civ 803
Facts
In this case a judgment debtor appealed against a decision in which her application to pay a judgment debt by instalments was refused.
Introduction
Monarch Airlines Limited's administrators have won an appeal with the Court of Appeal(1) regarding Monarch's rights in and to certain 'slots' at Luton and Gatwick Airports after Monarch went into administration at the beginning of October 2017.
The case is significant, as it reaffirms the value ascribed to slots by airlines and their financiers as rights of the airline and the fact that, as a result, they can be traded for value even after insolvency.
The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal from the Central London County Court, in which a judgment debtor(“L”) appealed a decision than an application to pay a judgment debt by instalments had been refused – DianaLoson v Brett Stack, Newlyn Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 803.
Background
In the recent decision in LBI EHF v. Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal has considered the close-out valuation provisions for "repo" trades entered into under a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition). The court refused to limit the wide discretion given to a non-defaulting party to determine fair market value under the GMRA.
The factual background
The recent Court of Appeal decision inLBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719 affirms the wide discretion of the non-Defaulting Party to determine "fair market value" in accordance with the close-out mechanism under paragraph 10(e)(ii) of the standard Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 version) ("GMRA").
The Facts
Mr Brown was declared bankrupt on 12 May 2016, following possession proceedings and costs order against him which had not been paid. Mr Brown did not accept that the original litigation leading to his bankruptcy was valid, and as a result did not accept that the bankruptcy proceedings were valid either. Mr Brown represented himself at all hearings and refused legal representation or assistance.
Judgment was recently handed down in the Court of Appeal case of No 1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 250. It is the first reported decision on the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 in the residential context, but it has implications as much for commercial landlords and tenants, as for residential. The case examined important issues which arose from a long lessee of a flat applying to its landlord for consent to assign.
The Court of Appeal has released an important decision for landlords and tenants concerning applications for consent to assign a lease, overturning the High Court's earlier decision in No.1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd.
The Court of Appeal decided that one bad reason for a landlord refusing its consent will not render the entire decision to withhold consent unreasonable, so long as there are other reasons for the refusal which are good and free-standing.