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.
Conflict liquidators have been appointed by the High Court to a group of companies to investigate claims by the director that the companies’ bank had artificially distressed the companies and driven them into administration.
Background
The Angel Group of companies was founded by Ms Julia Davey. They owned residential and commercial properties which were rented out. The companies borrowed substantial amounts from Lloyds HBOS. After getting into financial difficulties, the bank appointed administrators from KPMG over them.
A balanced view A quarterly update from our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team Winter/ Spring 2015/2016 Real Estate Dispute Resolution Issue 12 Contents Welcome to the Winter 2015/2016 edition of Eversheds In Focus. Since our Autumn 2015 edition, the Courts have considered a number of important cases on issues ranging from break options, the legitimacy of controversial rates avoidance schemes, relief from forfeiture, specific performance of contractual obligations and what constitutes a penalty payment.
In the recent case of Bank of Cyprus UK Limited v Menelaou, the Supreme Court showed the flexibility of the equitable remedy of unpaid vendor's lien.
Facts of the case
The last two months have seen two key appeals in which the court was required to decide whether the tenant of a particular type of building should enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold of a house. This right is enshrined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
The properties, and the questions for the court in each case, were quite different. What the judgments had in common was a purposive approach to interpretation of the Act.
The Court of Appeal has recently considered whether an LPA Receiver owes a duty of care to a bankrupt mortgagor in connection with the way the Receiver deals with the mortgaged property. In a decision which will be welcomed by Receivers and their insurers, the court decided that a Receiver owes no such duties.
The facts
This case concerned whether a fee payable by a tenant for assigning the lease involved the provision of “credit” for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).
Summary
Company dissolution and restoration, and its effects upon property of the company, is a difficult area to grapple with. Two recent decisions dealt with similar issues but with completely different outcomes. We analyse the decisions and which one should be viewed as correct.
The background