Summary and implications

Whilst the property market remains challenging, the possibility of landlords entering into administration increases and many redevelopment schemes have been put on hold.

The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.

Summary and implications

The court has clarified that administrators must pay rent as an expense of the administration when they use property.

The High Court has recently held* that:

The case of Goldacre v Nortel, decided in December, has clarified the circumstances in which an administrator is liable to pay rent under a lease as an expense of an administration. If rent is an expense of the administration, the landlord will almost certainly be paid in full for as long as the administrator uses the property. If it is not such an expense, the landlord will be an unsecured creditor who will be lucky to receive a few pence in the pound.

A decision by the High Court in December has strengthened the position of landlords who sometimes do not get paid during the administration even where the administrator is running the business from the property.

Certain categories of expense which may be incurred by the company after it has gone into administration, and which an administrator has to pay are known as "expenses of the administration" and the assets of the company in administration must be applied towards payment of these expenses ahead of any payment to creditors under floating charges or to unsecured creditors.

Summary and implications

Two recent cases involving company administrations have seen the court take very different approaches to an administrator’s demands. The court has shown that it will look at the overall purpose of the administration before deciding whether to allow administrators to use their powers. Clients should consider:

1. Can I lock the tenant out of the property until they pay?

No. If a tenant has been placed in administration then there will be a moratorium in place. This gives a company some breathing space. Rights against the company, such as forfeiture or conducting legal proceedings, can only be pursued with either the consent of the administrator or a court order. As noted last week, changing the locks is likely to forfeit the lease. Unless you intend to forfeit and obtain the necessary permission to do so, you should not change the locks.  

In the last edition of Real Estate Update, we considered the position of a landlord wishing to keep the lease of premises to a company in administration ongoing and in what circumstances he will receive the full rent (ie 100 pence in the pound). If, however, the tenant is in administration and the landlord would like to bring the lease to an end, he would only be entitled to forfeit the lease if the administrator consents or the court grants an order giving him permission to do so.1

The statutory moratorium may not protect a company in administration against proceedings continuing under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Property professionals will no doubt be familiar with the statutory moratorium that comes into effect immediately upon an administration order being made in respect of a company. The main effect of this is that no legal process may be started or continued against the company or property of the company except with the consent of the administrator or with the permission of the court.

The background

We have spent a lot of time thinking about landlords being affected by tenants going into administration over the last year. This posting is about a court case where the landlord’s administrators were trying to postpone the tenant’s application to Court for the grant of a new tenancy under the 1954 Act.

The administrators failed in their attempts to defer the 1954 Act proceedings even though it severely affected the value of the property in question and the amount that was going to be paid out to the secured creditor.