Many commercial landlords will currently be dealing with issues arising out of their tenants' financial difficulties, in particular the impact of insolvency proceedings. For tenants who are in administration, a moritorium applies, which will prevent a landlord taking action against the tenant without leave from the Court. Generally, the Courts will have a degree of sympathy for landlords, and will afford significant weight to the landlords’ proprietary rights when deciding whether to allow landlords to commence proceedings against a tenant.

Although service of a statutory demand or winding-up petition on a company is a blunt and unsophisticated debt recovery tool, it will often have the desired effect for a creditor as they are seldom ignored and ignored only at the company's peril. It can often prompt payment of the sum due, or judgment owed, where previously there has been prevarication and empty promises of payment.

Here is a reminder of some important issues a (solvent) company should consider if a statutory demand or petition is served upon it.

Doing nothing is not an option

In DHL GBS (UK) Ltd v Fallimento Finmatica Spa – Butterworths Law Direct 20.2.09 the Commercial Court gave its first decision on the issues dealt with by the ECJ in the Front Comor.

In Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL – Butterworths Law Direct 6.2.09 a receivership order had been made, paragraph 15 of which stated that 'Nothing in this order shall, in respect of assets located outside England and Wales, require the defendants and/or their directors to disobey the order of any court of competent jurisdiction in relation to such assets'.

Many landlords are experiencing the difficulties caused by tenants going into administration. Often their administrators seem to ignore landlords’ interests and lease terms when putting pre-packs together and many let the buyers of the insolvent business into the premises under informal licence arrangements, putting the landlord entirely at the administrators’ mercy when it comes to the payment of rents. If they’re lucky, administrators will offer to pay rent on a monthly basis in arrears.  

Company Voluntary Arrangements or CVA’s

Mead sought to enforce an adjudicator's decision of £332k. Dartmoor resisted on the basis that, as Mead was subject to a CVA, a stay should be granted on any judgment otherwise awarded to Mead. Mr Justice Coulson refused. There was no previous authority dealing with the point, but the Judge decided the following principles were relevant:  

In (1) James Robert Tucker (2) Jeremy Spratt (Joint Supervisors of Energy Holdings (No 3)(in liquidation) v Gold Fields Mining LLC [2009] EWCA Civ 173 the Joint Supervisors (JS) of a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) appealed against a decision that they had wrongly excluded a claim form on the grounds that it had been out of time.

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

Where the entirety of a debt is not included in an agreement to settle, a creditor can continue to prove in a bankruptcy for the balance.

In April 2008 the Bankruptcy & Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 ("the Act") introduced a new regime for obtaining permission for (and recalling) diligence on the dependence of a court action (i.e. arrestment and inhibition). In terms of the Act, before granting (or recalling) warrant for diligence, the court must be satisfied that: