Lease covenants

Lease covenants

There are various remedies available to a landlord for breach of a lease covenant, depending on the nature of the breach and other factors, including:

•
forfeiture
•
(in respect of rent arrears) commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR), debt proceedings, statutory demands, section 17 notices to former tenants or their guarantors, recovering rent from a sub-tenant,

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Transactions defrauding creditors—section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Malik v Messalti)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A transaction may be impugned under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) if it was done for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors, even if the transferor had no current creditors and contemplated only future hypothetical creditors at the time of the transaction. The focus is on the ‘purpose’ of the transaction, and not on ‘the degree of knowledge that a transferor has of the persons who are making, or may make, claims against him’. In this case, the appellant had disposed of a 50% beneficial share in a property at a time when he had no creditors (and a number of years before his liability to the respondent arose), but when he intended to engage on a course of litigation which could (and ultimately did) lead to costs awards against him. The prohibited purpose was established, and the transfer was set aside. Written by Alex Peplow, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—9 January 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: a Court of Appeal decision finding that the tenancy condition in section 81 Housing Act 1985 can be satisfied even where the tenant does not intend to return to the premises as a tenant, High Court decisions on the court’s jurisdiction to determine whether in point of law a particular debt is a ‘moratorium debt’ under the Debt Respite Scheme, and the causal link that must be established between the negligent advice and subsequent conduct of a property developer, on the interpretation of restrictions in a nomination rights deed on the disposal of property, on a parties’ termination clause which was found to exclude the ‘breach of contract principle’, a decision that a short LTA 1987 section 22 notice period was immaterial in light of landlord’s continued failure to remedy issues, and whether or not a right to forfeit had arisen. Upper Tribunal decisions on compensation for loss of amenity flowing from a redevelopment scheme and the court exercising its discretion to modify a restrictive covenant affecting land and overruling the First-tier Tribunal’s decision not to determine service charges due to lack of information, and a decision that a lawful assignee assuming primary responsibility for obligations in the licence agreement will be party to the Code agreement. It also includes a snapshot of key property developments to look out for in 2025.

Snapshot of key property developments to look out for in 2025

Property analysis: This analysis provides a snapshot of some of the key property developments to look out for in 2025.

Debt respite scheme—jurisdiction (Seculink Ltd v Forbes)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In the first appellate decision at High Court level on the surprisingly far-reaching Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the Debt Respite Regulations), SI 2020/1311, the High Court allowed the creditor’s appeal in a decision which is decidedly creditor-friendly. Sir Anthony Mann held that: (1) the courts retain the jurisdiction at all times to determine whether in point of law a particular debt is a ‘moratorium debt’, regardless of whether a creditor has exercised the review machinery under the Debt Respite Regulations; and, (2) where proceedings are live when a moratorium is entered into, a creditor does not need the court’s permission to proceed up to entry of judgment. Written by Tom Morris, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News