The Practical Lawyer

If T gets into financial difficulties, L should consider whether there is a sub-T. If so, then L can serve a notice on sub-T under s6 Law of Distress (Amendment) Act 1908. That notice would state that the head-T has failed to pay its rent to L, and that the sub-T has to therefore pay all future rent direct to L until the arrears have been paid.

It is often forgotten that this remedy exists. It applies whenever there is a sub-T and the effect of the notice is to create an L&T relationship between the L and sub-T, which allows L to take direct action against sub-T if there is a default in paying the rent to L. The only drawback is that the remedy only covers rent once it has fallen due. Accordingly, further notices need to be served each time subsequent arrears accrue.

Suppose L has a charge over a rent deposit (ie money is given to L to deposit in a separate account in L’s bank, but the money is declared as belonging to T, and is charged by T to L). If L then assigns its reversion, and the new L moves the rent deposit money into an account at its new bank, is it necessary for there to be a new charge in favour of the new holder of the reversion? In practice, this rarely happens and assignee Ls will simply open the new deposit account, and will not bother to take a new charge nor register it at Companies House.

The High Court has held that if T is in administration, and the administrators use any part of the property, then the whole of the rent will be an administration expense (ie the rent will rank ahead of sums due to preferential and other unsecured creditors).

For instance, suppose rent is due in advance on the usual quarter days. The administrators are using part of the premises on 25 March 2010, but vacate on 1 April 2010. The administrators are liable for the full quarter’s rent (even though they only occupied for one week, and even though they only used part of the premises). In summary:

The CA has upheld the validity of virtual assignments. In its view, a virtual assignment will not be in breach of a covenant that says T is not to:

• make a declaration of trust;
• create an under-lease;
• grant a legal assignment;
• share or part with possession.

At the end of a tenancy, L will be entitled to compensation from T for any breach of repair (and for failing to put the premises into their original condition).

The starting point is to say that T is liable for the ‘reasonable cost’ of doing the repair works, plus loss of rent for the period, until the works have been completed. However, this is all subject to s18(1) LTA 1927 which says that damages for breach of repair payable on termination of the lease shall be limited to the reduction in value of L’s reversion. But, how do you calculate that amount?

One of the grounds on which L can object to the grant of a renewal lease to a business T is when L intends to occupy the premises in order to carry out his own business (s3(1)(g) LTA 1954). But, what happens if L claims that he intends to occupy the premises, but is in fact likely to sell the premises within a short period?

T was able to serve a break notice after five years. T was defined as two companies, who held the lease jointly: Exel, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Tibbett.

The High Court has held that if T is in administration, and the company continues to use the premises, then the rent due to L must be paid as an expense of the administration. Thus, rent will rank ahead of sums due to preferential and other unsecured creditors.

Over the past year there has been much debate about the validity of virtual assignments, following a High Court decision in which it was held that a virtual assignment would nearly always be a breach of the ‘parting with possession’ covenant in a lease.

L might be tempted to generate some cash by allowing an empty property to be occupied on a short-term let.

One complication to think about is dilapidations. If L is still pursuing a dilapidations claim against a former T, then granting a new tenancy (however short) could give rise to an argument that the dilapidations claim should fail because L has suffered no loss (through being able to re-let at a market rent). Whilst that argument may be rebuttable, it is a further complication that L will have to deal with.