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.

Landlords often ask for a rent deposit when they grant a new lease, or consent to an assignment, especially if the incoming tenant is of shaky covenant strength. This provides security against possible future default.

If a tenant becomes insolvent then this is exactly the sort of situation where a landlord would want to make use of a deposit. Where it is in the “commingling” form (i.e. paid to the landlord so that it becomes a debt in favour of the tenant) then that is unproblematic: no restrictions are imposed by the moratorium which arises on the tenant’s insolvency.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions

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

In our September 2012 insolvency update, we reported on Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, where the Victorian Court of Appeal found that a leasehold interest in land is extinguished by a liquidator's disclaimer of the lease pursuant to section 568(1) of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Our September 2012 insolvency update featured the article "Disclaiming Landlord's Interest in a Lease - an Australian Perspective". This article discussed the Victorian Court of Appeal's ruling that section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (similar to our own section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ)) allows a liquidator to exercise his power of disclaimer to extinguish the leasehold estate of a tenant.

A liquidator of a landlord company who disclaims a lease under section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a section largely similar to section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ), does so with full effect, leaving the land unencumbered by the interests of tenants.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.