This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

Can a debtor be found to be balance sheet or cash flow insolvent even though its obligations are limited (in terms of creditor recourse) to the available assets? This was the question facing the High Court in Re ARM Asset Backed Securities SA [2013] EWCH 3351.

The background

What happens to funds held in escrow when the paying entity goes into administration?

The background

Escrow mechanisms are familiar territory for most practitioners. The case of Bristol Alliance Nominee No. 1 Ltd and others v Neil Andrew Bennett and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1626 explores what happens when funds are held in escrow at a time when the paying entity goes into administration.

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the hugely anticipated litigation involving the Game group of companies, deciding that, where a company goes into administration and continues to trade from property, rent will be payable on a daily basis for the period during which the company actually occupies the premises.

Michael John Andrew Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others [2013] EWHC 2171 (Ch) (“Game”)

Game has come to the courts against the background of two previous High Court decisions on the treatment of lease rents in administration. Recent decisions on this point have arisen out of cases where landlords made claims for rent in the administration of tenant companies.

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 case of B v IB [2013] EWHC 3755 (Fam) the High Court has determined the status of an application made under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 issued during divorce proceedings where the husband had died during the process and the wife intended to commence new proceedings under s.10 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Background

Where an Administrator makes employees redundant ahead of a sale of the business, will it always be a dismissal connected with a transfer (and therefore automatically unfair), or can it ever be for "economic, technical or organisational" (ETO) reasons (and therefore potentially fair)? In Crystal Palace FC Ltd –v- Kavanagh & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1410, the Court of Appeal found for the latter, a more pragmatic, approach. Motivation, it appears, is everything in such cases. 

Our government has a longstanding commitment to cutting red tape. One of the ways of doing this it seems is to propose an Act of Parliament running to 153 pages. Thus we are presented with the Deregulation Bill.

A few of the provisions of this Bill relate to insolvency. The most significant are:

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.