Judgment in the Court of Appeal case of Pillar Denton v Game Retail- about rent due during the administration of Game was handed down yesterday. It is a landmark ruling for administrators, on the thorny issue of the payment of rent during the period of the tenant’s administration.

The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).

The Court of Appeal has changed the law relating to the liability of administrators and liquidators to pay rent as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

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”).

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”.