header-logo header-logo

15 September 2011 / Christopher Warenius
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

At the Sharples end?

How are the interests of insolvent tenants balanced with those of their landlords, asks Christopher Warenius

In the current economic climate, landlords are frequently faced with tenants in financial difficulty. Often these tenants may resort to formal insolvency procedures such as bankruptcy. Formal insolvency mechanisms are designed to provide a degree of protection both for the insolvent party and for their unsecured creditors, who may have competing claims. Landlords can be among the most vulnerable of a tenant’s unsecured creditors because the tenant is in their property and it is difficult to end an ongoing contractual relationship with the financially unsound party. The question often arises as to whose interests take precedence in this situation.

Section 285(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides such a mechanism. It restricts legal recourse against the insolvent party once a bankruptcy order has been made by providing that: (3)…no person who is a creditor of the bankrupt in respect of a debt provable in the bankruptcy shall—(a) have any remedy against the property or person

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll