Commercial landlords and insolvency practitioners are all alive to the effects of the decision of HHJ Purle QC in Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch) (07 December 2009), that rent is an administration expense when it falls due during the administration.

Gabriel Moss QC has however written a fascinating analysis in Insolvency Intelligence ((2010) 23 (5) Insolv. Int. 76), concluding that Goldacre failed to follow the Court of Appeal's approach to administration expenses in Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc, which he says was unaffected by the House of Lords decision in Re Toshoku Finance (UK) plc (in liquidation). Accordingly, he argues, the court retains a discretion whether or not to treat rent, a pre-administration liability arising at the time the lease was executed, as if it were an administration expense.

Goldacre's consequences were not an obvious triumph for the rescue culture and perhaps were due to a logical flaw. Can we now return to the common sense of the courts' discretion?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link
• Mercer Hole Homepage
• Contact Us

Not only is rent an administration expense, but it is payable on the terms of the lease. Having the company occupy only part of the premises on a quarter day will in most cases trigger an administration expense liability for the whole of the next quarter's rent, payable immediately.

This results from the decision in Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch) (07 December 2009), where HHJ Purle QC applied the Lundy Granite or liquidation expense principle to administrations in light of the similarlity of wording between Insolvency Rules 4.218 and 2.67.

In February 2009 we postulated, following Innovate Logistics Ltd v Sunberry Properties Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1321 (18 November 2008), that the administrator and the landlord would have to consider the balancing exercise that the court would undertake between the financial loss to the landlord and the financial loss to the creditors generally. The pendulum has now swung firmly in favour of landlords.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link
• Mercer Hole Homepage
• Contact Us

A landlord has no automatic right to be paid rent as an administration expense and, as regards rent falling due after the date of the administration order, the landlord is an unsecured creditor of the tenant company.

In case there had been any doubt after the Trident Fashions case, where business rates were found to be an administration expense and some commentators suggested, by analogy, that rent would be treated similarly, Innovate Logistics Ltd v Sunberry Properties Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1321 (18 November 2008) clarifies the position.

It does not mean that a company can occupy premises rent free after administration, but the court will exercise its discretion in considering whether to allow the landlord to override the statutory administration moratorium according to the guidance in Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc.

That guidance illustrates that significant financial loss to the landlord in the event of the landlord not being able to enforce his proprietory rights could be outweighed by loss to the creditors in the event that occupation of the premises came to an end.

Accordingly, in practice, the administrator and the landlord will need to consider the balancing exercise the court would undertake, and some payment - perhaps even the full amount of the rent due - may have to be made, effectively as a ransom payment in respect of the landlord's unsecured claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link
• Mercer Hole Homepage
• Contact Us