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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll