In the traditional landscape of commercial landlord and tenant law, a tenant entering administration once triggered a “winner takes all” scenario based purely on the calendar. For decades, the timing of an insolvencia appointment relative to the “Quarter Day” determined whether a landlord received full payment or nothing at all. However, modern case law and the Insolvency Act 1986 have shifted the landscape toward a more equitable, “pay-as-you-go” model that protects the landlord’s right to be paid for the use of their asset.
1. El “cambio de juego” de 2014: Jervis contra Pillar Denton Ltd
The most significant shift in modern propiedad comercial law came from the 2014 Court of Recurso ruling in Jervis v Pillar Denton Ltd, commonly known as the Game Station case. Before this landmark decision, the industry operated under the “all or nothing” precedents of Goldacre and Luminar.
Con arreglo a esas antiguas normas, si un inquilino entraba en administración justo un día después de un día trimestral (cuando el alquiler debía pagarse por adelantado), los tres meses enteros de alquiler se clasificaban como deuda “previa a la administración”. Esto significaba que el administrador podía comerciar legalmente con el local durante el resto del trimestre sin pagar ni un céntimo de alquiler, ya que la deuda se consideraba un crédito no garantizado de baja prioridad.
The 2014 Game Station ruling dismantled this “rent trap.” The Court of Appeal established three revolutionary pillars for comercial landlord and tenant relations:
- · Daily Accrual: Rent is now treated as accruing day-to-day for the specific period that an administrator actually uses the propiedad.
- Estado de gastos: Cualquier alquiler en el que se incurra durante este periodo de uso se eleva a “gasto de administración”. Se trata de un estado de alta prioridad, lo que significa que el arrendador debe recibir el pago antes que los propios honorarios del administrador y antes que los pagos a los titulares de cargas flotantes.
- The End of Tactical Timing: Administrators can no longer time their appointment to “steal” a rent-free quarter. If they use the shop, office, or warehouse to sell stock or trade the business, they must pay for that privilege on a pro-rata basis.
2. Definir el “uso”: Cuándo está el administrador ‘utilizando’ la propiedad
Un punto crítico de controversia en los casos de insolvencia de arrendadores y arrendatarios comerciales puede surgir a veces en torno a la cuestión de definir exactamente lo que constituye “uso” por parte de un administrador. Esto determina si el alquiler es un gasto prioritario o una deuda no garantizada potencialmente sin valor.
Dado que el principio de Lundy Granite dicta que el alquiler sólo es un gasto si la propiedad se utiliza en beneficio de la administración, los tribunales han tenido que trazar finas líneas que se resumen a grandes rasgos a continuación:
- Active Trading: If the administrator keeps the doors open, employs staff, and sells products, this is likely to be considered indisputable “use.” The rent must be paid in full for every day the till is ringing.
- Almacenamiento de activos: Aunque la empresa esté “cerrada” al público, el uso de los locales para almacenar instalaciones, maquinaria o existencias no vendidas constituye un beneficio para los acreedores. Al no trasladar las existencias a un almacén comercial, el administrador está ahorrando dinero al patrimonio a costa del arrendador. Por lo tanto, es probable que esto equivalga a “uso”.”
- The “Holding Pattern”: This is a potentially grey area. If an administrator is simply holding the keys while they decide whether to disclaim the lease or sell it to a third party—but the building is physically empty—they may argue they aren’t “using” it. However, if they are actively marketing the lease as a valuable asset of the company, the landlord can argue that this “retention for sale” is a form of beneficial use.
- Environmental or Normativa Necessity: If the administrator must remain in possession to comply with insurance requirements or environmental permits (common in industrial tenancies), this could potentially qualify as “use.”
3. Levantar la moratoria: Recuperar el control
When a commercial tenant enters administration, a “statutory moratorium” automatically descends. This is a legal “force field” that prevents landlords from taking standard enforcement actions, such as decomiso (changing the locks) or Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR).
To break through this, a landlord must apply to the court for permission to lift the moratorium. This is a high-stakes legal maneuver where the court performs a “balancing act” between the needs of the failing business and the rights of the property owner. The court typically looks at:
- The Purpose of Administration: If the administrator can prove that keeping the landlord out is essential to saving jobs or selling the company as a going concern, the court may maintain the moratorium.
- Pérdida para el propietario: Si el propietario puede demostrar que la moratoria le está causando una “pérdida desproporcionada” -por ejemplo, si tiene un nuevo inquilino dispuesto a firmar un contrato de arrendamiento con una renta más alta-, es más probable que el tribunal conceda el permiso de caducidad.
- Failure to Pay Expenses: Crucially, if an administrator is using the premises under the Game Station rules but failing to pay the “pay-as-you-go” rent, the court will be more likley to lift the moratorium. The law does not allow an administrator to use a landlord’s property for free while building up a pot of cash for other creditors.
4. Realidad estratégica para los propietarios
Navigating these niche aspects of insolvency requires immediate action. A landlord cannot afford to wait for the next quarter day. They must demand an immediate “admission of use” from the administrator and, if payment is not forthcoming, move quickly to lift the moratorium. By understanding the interplay between the Insolvency Act and the Game Station precedent, landlords can transform a “bad debt” into a priority payment.
Commercial Landlord Solicitors - Contáctenos
David Burns, Senior Litigios Partner at Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP, has extensive experience handling issues related to commercial tenants who have breached the terms of their lease. For inquiries on this topic, please contact David Burns via email at D.Burns@rfblegal.co.uk or by phone at 0207 467 5751.
David Burns
Socio Principal de Litigios
