The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.

It is over 10 years since the House of Lords decision in the case of Sharp v Thomson (1997 SC (HL) 44) threw a judicial cat amongst the pigeons of property and insolvency law in Scotland. The House of Lords, overturning decisions of both the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session, decided that ownership of a property passed unencumbered by, in this case, a crystallised floating charge, even though the disposition of that property (which had been delivered before the floating charge crystallised) had not yet been registered in the Property Register.

This Act received Royal Assent in July 2007 but no date for implementation has been published yet.

In addition to the provisions contained in this Act aimed at improving the working of the tribunals system and increasing judicial diversity, are several sections that will be of interest to financiers and insolvency professionals: 

With commentators predicting that the real impact of last summer’s credit crunch on corporate liquidations has yet to be felt, how can landlords and tenants of commercial properties prepare for a potential rise in the number of corporate insolvencies?

LANDLORDS’ REMEDIES - THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

The landlord of a commercial property faced with an insolvent tenant will usually have two concerns:

There is a prevailing view that landlords have not fared well in recent developments in insolvency law aimed at furthering a culture of corporate rescue. However, landlords should give a broad welcome to a recent case which sought to deal with the complicated question of what expenses should be considered as “expenses of an administration”.

Administrators to the rescue

In September 2003, PRG Powerhouse Limited bought the Powerhouse business and its leases. As a condition of the sale, the landlords of various stores accepted a guarantee from Powerhouse’s parent company in respect of Powerhouse’s obligations under the leases.

MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

A fashion retailer in administration had unpaid rates of over £2.6 million across its many outlets. The court was asked to consider whether the administrators were liable to pay the accrued rates as "expenses of the administration", meaning that they would take priority over sums due to other unsecured creditors.

A recent decision from the High Court has shed some light on the remedies available to landlords under insolvency legislation against tenants who enter into administration. The decision provides useful guidance on the ability of a landlord to exercise its right of forfeiture.