Tenants’ contractual liability to pay rent during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (Bank of New York Mellon v Cine-UK)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Contract interpretation
• Implied terms
• Frustration (including temporary frustration)
• Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case involved three applications for summary judgment which were heard together, as all three cases raised the same legal issue: was the tenant liable to pay rent despite not being permitted to enjoy occupation of the premises as a result of coronavirus (COVID-19) regulations; and also where the landlord had insured the premises which extended in principle to loss arising from the circumstances of the pandemic? The court considered and applied the principles of construction and interpretation of the leases and insurance policies, as well as considering whether implied terms should be inserted into the leases. The tenants also raised arguments involving frustration. The tenants’ claims were all rejected by the court, which found in favour of the landlords. Written by Laura Alliss, senior associate at Geldards LLP.