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.

The Court of Appeal in Pillar Denton Ltd & Others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison and (3) Game Retail Ltd ([2014] EWCA Civ 180) yesterday overruled previous High Court authority, deciding that rent should be treated as an expense of the administration based on actual usage and not on when the rent falls due. What does this mean for practitioners?

The background

Pillar Denton Ltd & others v Jervis & others [2014] EWCA 180 (“Game Station”)

The outcome of this appeal has been awaited with a high degree of interest.  The issue was the extent to which rent should be payable as an expense of an administration or liquidation; if it is payable as an expense, it sits near the top of the priority order for the distribution of the tenant’s assets, and will usually be paid in full.  Otherwise, it is among the unsecured debts, and the landlord will have to wait for whatever dividend is ultimately payable.

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

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 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.

The impending abolishment of the ancient common law self-help remedy of distress will affect landlords, tenants and insolvency practitioners.

What is Distress?

The ability of landlords to recover arrears of rent without going to Court, by instructing bailiffs to seize, impound and sell certain goods located at the premises and belonging to the tenant. This right will remain until 6 April 2014, but after that date distress will no longer be available and commercial landlords will instead have to rely on Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (“CRAR”).

For landlords of commercial premises, one of their main concerns is making sure that the tenant pays all sums due under the lease. Unfortunately this doesn’t always happen so what are the options for recovering unpaid rent? This note summarises the different methods of enforcing payment of rent and looks at the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Considerations before you take action

Before commencing any enforcement action to recover rent arrears you should think about the following points:

Several blogs ago, I asked whether a party could still argue that the Notified Sum (as defined in the Housing Grants Construction Regeneration Act 1996, as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 - the Act) was not payable even in the absence of a Pay Less Notice.  To continue the theme of Pay Less Notices and their absence, what about the interplay between construction law and insolvency law - in the absence of a Pay Less Notice, and faced with a petition to the court to wind them up, could a party defend itself by saying that the so-called 'debt

According to The Times (25 October 2013) the British Property Federation has advised landlords to take larger rent deposits to reduce losses caused by the insolvency of a tenant.