Landlords typically have a number of obligations to fulfil, such as maintaining, repairing and providing insurance for the property the tenants inhabit. If the landlord is a company at risk of insolvency, however, or an individual nearing bankruptcy, then it is not safe for leaseholders to assume that these obligations will be met or that the freehold interest will necessarily pass to them. Leaseholders need to be aware of what they must do in such a situation in order to acquire the freehold interest from the landlord.

Recent developments in landlord and tenant law concerning the position of the outgoing tenant’s guarantor on the assignment of the lease can only be described as ‘bonkers’. A few years ago, the Good Harvest and House of Fraser cases confirmed that a parent company could not guarantee both of its subsidiaries on an intra-group assignment. Last month, in the EMI case, the High Court has confirmed that the assignment of a lease to the tenant’s guarantor is similarly void.

Happy anniversary

KEY POINTS

The BHS CVA is now in effect following a successful ‘yes’ vote on 23 March 2016 when 95% of creditors voted in favour of the proposals.

Summary

The case of K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd in 2011 clarified several important points under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 relating to the release of covenants and the responsibilities of tenant and guarantor on assignment of a lease.

In giving the judgement for K/S Victoria Street Lord Neuberger commented obiter that the anti-avoidance provisions of the 1995 Act may prevent an assignment from a tenant to its guarantor, even if both parties wished it.

Whilst there is evidence that, especially in the retail market, the number of store closures and resulting empty units is at its lowest level since a peak in 2012, high profile announcements such as that of BHS mean that they are still a reality. The Court has, with this decision, provided a timely reminder of the principles of surrender by operation of law of which landlords, tenants and guarantors should be mindful.

Summary 

Landlords have no reason to fear Frankenstein’s monster, following the decision of the High Court in EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited. The court was considering, once again, the anti-avoidance provisions in the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Many will be familiar with the effect of the 1995 Act, which ensures that both tenants and their guarantors are released on assignment.

It is now clear that leases cannot be assigned to the tenant’s guarantor but serious issues arise out of the recent High Court case of EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited which specified that any lease assignment by a tenant to its guarantor is void. This means that the assignment is not effective, the lease is still held by the previous tenant and the intended assignee remains the guarantor of that previous tenant (and does not become the new tenant of the lease). In addition, be aware that the court’s decision applies retrospectively.

BLP real estate disputes partner Roger Cohen summarises a recent court decision about whether or not a landlord had accepted a lease surrender by the way it handled “jingle mail”, a letter returning the keys, from the administrators of the insolvent tenant. Jingle mail is a tactic used by administrators. The landlord argued successfully that ,on this occasion, the tactic failed.