Trustees should be careful when disclaiming assets after bankruptcy, after a High Court ruling blocked an application on a property that turned a significant profit when sold.
The case in question is Sleight v The Crown Estate Commissioners [2018] EWHC 3489 (ch).
The facts
The Applicant in Sleight was the trustee in bankruptcy (the Applicant). The Respondents were The Crown Estate Commissioners (the Respondents).
Introduction
The recent decision of Andrew Burrows QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, in Palliser Limited v Fate Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] EWHC 43 (QB), is a useful reminder of the difficulties that can arise where one party (here a tenant) relies on another (its landlord) to take out insurance.
The Facts
In 2010, a fire started at the ground floor restaurant owned and operated by a company called Fate Limited (“Fate”). It was not in dispute that the fire was caused by Fate’s negligence.
If you are a landlord where the tenant company goes into liquidation you should consider your options carefully before taking any action.
In such a case, the liquidator is able to disclaim “onerous property,” which is likely to include a lease at an open market (or similar) rent. The effect of the disclaimer is to bring the liability of the tenant company to an end as well as ending its interest in the property.
Events of Default are most often found in the context of loan agreements and are similar to termination rights that may be found in commercial agreements, albeit with potentially different consequences. An Event of Default is an event or circumstance relating to a borrower or its activities which will give rise to a right for a lender to refuse to make any further advances, demand immediate repayment of a loan, make a term loan repayable on demand and/or enforce its security.
Daniel Gatty discusses the recent High Court ruling in Leon v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and others [2018] EWHC 3026 (Ch) and its impact on the grant of vesting orders following the disclaimer of a lease.
Readers of this column will be aware of the complications that can ensue when a lease is disclaimed by a tenant’s liquidator under section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), by a tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy under section 315 of the IA 1986 or by the Crown under section 1013 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) following dissolution of a tenant company.
A trustee in bankruptcy lost all rights to the proceeds of sale of a freehold property after he disclaimed title to it
Background
Mr Sleight was the trustee in bankruptcy of an insolvent estate. The deceased’s assets included several freehold properties that were charged to banks where the value of the property was less than the amounts due under the charges. Given the negative equity, the trustee in bankruptcy disclaimed title to these properties as they constituted “onerous property”.
The Facts
The application relates to the estate of Jillian Mascall (the “Deceased”), which owned around 27 properties. The Deceased died on 4 December 2014 and it later became apparent the estate was insolvent.
2018 was the "year of the CVA", slashing rents and forcing landlords to get to grips with long-winded CVA proposal documents in an attempt to allow struggling tenants to manage their debts, turn around their businesses and avoid terminal insolvency situations.
The unfortunate reality is that even if they are approved by landlords and other creditors, not all these CVAs will be successful and many tenants are likely to end up in administration.
If a company goes into liquidation, the liquidator is able to disclaim the whole of an insolvent tenant’s liability under a lease. The disclaimer ends all of the tenant’s rights, interests and liabilities, effectively meaning that the tenant can get out of the lease early. This can have a significant impact on a landlord, whose expected income from the property suddenly comes to an end.
The face of the UK's high streets and shopping centres continues to change rapidly as consumers, shopping and leisure habits change and evolve.
In this latest article in our "future of consumer" series, we look at the continued use of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) by retailers (and restaurant owners) to reduce their exposure to landlords under their leases and ask what are the trends and the future direction of this restructuring procedure.