³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

Tenant/landlord issues


Tenant failure is a big issue for landlords. Landlords are often left in a perilous position in the insolvency of a tenant. They may have huge sums of rent owing, yet they are restricted from initiating steps against a tenant subject to an insolvency process due to statutory limitations. While landlords have a proprietary interest, it is difficult for them to exercise any of the self-help remedies. This can be contrasted with a supplier, who does not (in most circumstances) have a proprietary interest, but can better its position by virtue of any pre-existing retention of title clauses, or an agreement to continue to supply the insolvent business in exchange for payments being met as an expense of the insolvency process, typically in an administration.

The key factor for a landlord when a tenant is insolvent, or is verging on an insolvency event, is to ensure that outstanding rent arrears are paid and future rents are secured as best as possible. Unless there is adequate financial protection in place (such as a rent deposit facility,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Presentation of winding up petition prevented by lender’s potential misrepresentation (Alpha Schools (Holdings) Ltd v Signal Alpha III Fund LP)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was an application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding up petition. The respondent was a company which asserted that it was entitled, pursuant to a term sheet prepared during loan negotiations, to a £350,000 break fee and certain other sums. The applicant’s main argument was that it had a cross-claim in misrepresentation which meant that (1) the term sheet, to the extent that it had contractual force, had been rescinded and (2) there was in any event a damages claim large enough to extinguish the alleged debt. It was held that there was sufficient evidence of misrepresentation to meet the test. The applicant was entitled to an injunction. Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: the publication by the Insolvency Service of its monthly insolvency statistics for November 2024, an examination of the meaning of ‘unregistered company’ under section 220(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (East Riding of Yorkshire Council v KMG), analysis of the Commercial Court’s guidance on pleading and proving claims under IA 1986, s 423 (Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

Challenge to administrators’ conduct dismissed (Re CJFL Property Partners Ltd; Nardelli v Richardson)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court dismissed the applicants’ applications to remove and replace the joint administrators. The administrators’ decisions fell within the range of decisions that were open to them, even though further renegotiations with the secured creditor (Desiman) and the purchaser’s ‘chipping’ at the purchase price during turbulent economic conditions eroded the prospect the applicants would receive an economic return in the administration. In that respect, Desiman could be said to have driven a hard commercial bargain, but that was not a circumstance for which the administrators were ultimately responsible. Nor was it sufficient for any of the allegations to be made out. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Erskine Chambers.

Court of Appeal clarifies when a dissolved partnership may bring litigation (Flohr v Frontiers Capital I Ltd Partnership)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the authority to bind a firm for the purposes of its winding up (conferred on partners after the dissolution of a partnership by section 38 of the Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890)) applies to pursuing causes of action which accrued prior to dissolution. Whether PA 1890, s 38 will permit partners of a dissolved partnership to pursue litigation post-dissolution is a fact sensitive question. The question is whether such litigation is reasonably required in all the circumstances to wind up the affairs of the partnership. Relevant considerations are not circumscribed and will include considerations of prospects of success and cost-effectiveness. In Flohr, the Court of Appeal confirmed a general partner of a limited partnership governed by the Limited Partnership Act 1907 (LPA 1907) was empowered to sue a third party on behalf of the partnership notwithstanding the dissolution and winding up of the partnership. This was so even though the relevant cause of action arose prior to dissolution. Written by James Fagan, Barrister, at Radcliffe Chambers.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance taxWhile interest often accrues on overdue tax, the late payment of certain taxes may also attract a penalty. For information on the interest accruing on overdue tax, see Practice Notes: IHT—payment deadlines on death—Interest on IHT and Interest on late paid

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claimsContributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance taxWhile interest often accrues on overdue tax, the late payment of certain taxes may also attract a penalty. For information on the interest accruing on overdue tax, see Practice Notes: IHT—payment deadlines on death—Interest on IHT and Interest on late paid

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]

Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claimsContributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a