header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 September 2011 / Christopher Warenius
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

At the Sharples end?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll