Landlords typically have a number of obligations to fulfil, such as maintaining, repairing and providing insurance for the property the tenants inhabit. If the landlord is a company at risk of insolvency, however, or an individual nearing bankruptcy, then it is not safe for leaseholders to assume that these obligations will be met or that the freehold interest will necessarily pass to them. Leaseholders need to be aware of what they must do in such a situation in order to acquire the freehold interest from the landlord.
Recent developments in landlord and tenant law concerning the position of the outgoing tenant’s guarantor on the assignment of the lease can only be described as ‘bonkers’. A few years ago, the Good Harvest and House of Fraser cases confirmed that a parent company could not guarantee both of its subsidiaries on an intra-group assignment. Last month, in the EMI case, the High Court has confirmed that the assignment of a lease to the tenant’s guarantor is similarly void.
Happy anniversary
BLP real estate disputes partner Roger Cohen summarises a recent court decision about whether or not a landlord had accepted a lease surrender by the way it handled “jingle mail”, a letter returning the keys, from the administrators of the insolvent tenant. Jingle mail is a tactic used by administrators. The landlord argued successfully that ,on this occasion, the tactic failed.
Landlords have no reason to fear Frankenstein’s monster, following the decision of the High Court in EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited. The court was considering, once again, the anti-avoidance provisions in the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Many will be familiar with the effect of the 1995 Act, which ensures that both tenants and their guarantors are released on assignment.
Summary
Real Estate Disputes Case Review 2015 In case you have missed the last 12 months’ most significant property cases, or would like a reminder, listed below is our monthly review of this year’s important cases. Briefing Real Estate December 2015 December 2014 Landlord protecting tenant’s deposits A landlord’s ability to seek possession of residential premises under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 was considered when the tenant’s deposit had not been protected in an authorised scheme at the time of service of the notice.
On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.
The government has indicated that it will raise the financial threshold for creditors petitioning for an individual's bankruptcy through an amendment to the Insolvency Act 1986. From 1 October 2015 a creditor will need to be owed at least £5,000, rather than £750 as at present. This change, coming very shortly after the recent abolition of the remedy of distress, will inevitably serve to further limit landlords' armouries when attempting to recover arrears from tenants.
The news that USC has taken steps to commence an insolvency process is further proof (if proof were needed) that despite what TS Elliot may have claimed, January really is the cruellest month.
In recent Court decisions, the balance between Administrators and Landlords has shifted backward and forwards with great regularity. Both sides have just learned that the goal posts have moved once more.
The judgment from a unanimous Court of Appeal last week has overruled the previous authorities on the issue of whether rent is payable as an expense in an Administration. In light of the decision in Jervis v Pillar Denton Ltd and Others, the decisions in Goldacre and Luminar are no longer of any effect.