Vanquish Properties (UK) Ltd Partnership v Brook Street (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1508 (Ch)

Vanquish, a developer, was a Limited Partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 with one General Partner, liable for all obligations of the business, and four Limited Partners.

It was granted an overriding lease by the City Corporation in the name of the Limited Partnership, “acting by” its General Partner. There was no mention of the four Limited Partners.

The minefield of surrenders and assignments

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

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.

The last two months have seen two key appeals in which the court was required to decide whether the tenant of a particular type of building should enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold of a house. This right is enshrined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

The properties, and the questions for the court in each case, were quite different. What the judgments had in common was a purposive approach to interpretation of the Act.

The High Court has considered whether the title to a freehold property could be re-vested in a company restored to the register of companies where the Crown had disclaimed its interest whilst the company was dissolved.

Background

It is now settled law that when an Administrator retains occupation of leasehold property on the basis that it will benefit of the company’s creditors, rent that relates to that period of occupation must be paid by the Administrator as an expense of the administration.

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.

Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v. Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207

Summary

A landlord is liable for business rates where a tenant's lease is disclaimed, even if the landlord does not take possession of the property following a disclaimer.

Background