This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments  made to other creditors.

Background

This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

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.

In the case of B v IB [2013] EWHC 3755 (Fam) the High Court has determined the status of an application made under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 issued during divorce proceedings where the husband had died during the process and the wife intended to commence new proceedings under s.10 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Background

Where an Administrator makes employees redundant ahead of a sale of the business, will it always be a dismissal connected with a transfer (and therefore automatically unfair), or can it ever be for "economic, technical or organisational" (ETO) reasons (and therefore potentially fair)? In Crystal Palace FC Ltd –v- Kavanagh & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1410, the Court of Appeal found for the latter, a more pragmatic, approach. Motivation, it appears, is everything in such cases. 

In the recent decision of Topland Portfolio No.1 Limited v Smiths News Trading Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 18, the Court of Appeal has given a timely reminder of the need for landlords to tread carefully when dealing with leases to ensure that a tenant guarantee remains effective.

In a recent judgment, HHJ Cooke found in favour of the defendant solicitors in a claim by the Trustees in Bankruptcy of Clifford Shore that Irwin Mitchell had failed properly to advise Mr Shore as to the risk of pursuing litigation that was subject to limitation arguments.

Kevin Hellard, Amanda Wade v Irwin Mitchell [2013] EWHC 3008 (Ch)

Background

On 12 December 2013, our client, Magyar Telecom B.V. (the “Company”), a Dutch holding company of the Invitel group of companies (the “Group”) and one of the leading telecommunication services providers in Hungary, completed the restructuring of its €345 million 9.5% Senior Secured Notes due 2016 (the “Notes”).

Parties wishing to resist the enforcement of an adjudication decision on the grounds of insolvency usually need to show that the claiming party will not be in a position to repay the amount of the decision if required to do so in later court or arbitration proceedings. Two recent cases in the TCC have, however, shown that different considerations can apply in the less typical circumstances of a members’ voluntary liquidation and a creditors voluntary arrangement.

Maguire & Co v Mar City Developments