Tenant/landlord issues

This overview is a guide to the Restructuring & Insolvency content within the Tenant/landlord issues subtopic, with links to the available materials.

Landlords are often left in a perilous position in the insolvency of a tenant. They may have rent owing, yet they may be restricted from initiating steps against a tenant subject to an insolvency process due to statutory limitations, even though landlords have a proprietary interest.

The key factor for a landlord when a tenant is insolvent, or is verging on an insolvency event, is to ensure that outstanding rent arrears are paid and future rents are secured as best as possible. Unless there is adequate financial protection in place (such as a rent deposit, or a guarantee with an entity with sufficient covenant strength), it is very difficult for landlords to protect their position. Further, and balanced against this, landlords also need to take into account the long-term plan for the tenant, as pushing hard for rent in the short term could lead to premises becoming unoccupied and empty rates liabilities arising.

On the other hand, tenants may also find themselves in a position where

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Early disclosure applications in director disqualification claims (Lawless v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court refused applications for specific and non-party disclosure in directors’ disqualification proceedings. Before serving evidence, Mr Lawless (the director) sought correspondence between the Secretary of State and the liquidators contending it would show that adequate records had been provided and that any perceived inadequacy stemmed from the liquidators’ misunderstanding. Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Agnello KC dismissed the applications on relevance grounds. The issue at trial will be whether the companies’ books and records were objectively adequate. Communications showing the liquidators’ views did not bear on that question and were therefore irrelevant and unnecessary for a fair trial. In obiter, the court affirmed that specific disclosure may be sought at any stage, even in CPR Part 8 proceedings. The concurrent non-party disclosure application against the liquidators was also criticised as lacking merit as identical documents were sought from the Secretary of State, a party to the proceedings. Written by Ololade Saromi, barrister at Five Paper.

The importance of brevity and purpose in administrators’ blessings (Dolfin v Firestone)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Dolfin v Firestone concerned two applications, one by the joint special administrators of a company in special administration pursuant to the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (IBSAR 2011), SI 2011/245 seeking approval of a wide-ranging ‘protocol’ governing the conduct of the administration, and the other by clients of that company seeking a direction for an interim distribution of client moneys and a declaration that the administrators had not performed their function of returning client assets as quickly or efficiently as was reasonably practicable. The court did not approve the protocol. The administrators, as experienced professionals, could not expect to receive the court’s protection across such a spread of issues. Nor would the court make a declaration as part of the directions procedure where the issues were best suited for trial. Although an order for interim distribution was made, the court noted the possibility of seeking a Benjamin order for a more focussed protection. Written by Piers Digby, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

Provisional liquidators’ powers and retrospective ratification (Aerovías Del Continente Americano v Versilia Solutions)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The judgment in Aerovías Del Continente Americano S.A. and other companies v Versilia Solutions Ltd relates in particular to three aspects of provisional liquidations. First, the importance of ensuring that the scope of the order appointing provisional liquidators confers all the powers they can anticipate requiring. Second, the need to return to court to vary the appointing order and/or seek directions where the powers originally conferred turn out to be insufficient. Third, confirmation of the court's power to retrospectively ratify the actions of provisional liquidators under its overall supervisory control functions. The court signalled that, while it was prepared to grant relief in this case, such applications are likely to receive closer scrutiny from here on, and practitioners should ensure that provisional liquidation orders are drafted with sufficient foresight. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner and Rhian Bevan trainee solicitor, at Wedlake Bell.

Insolvency Service publishes IVA outcomes and providers statistics for 2025

The Insolvency Service has published official statistics on Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) outcomes and providers for 2025, covering arrangements registered in England and Wales. The data reveals that 71,855 IVAs were registered in 2025, up from 67,089 in 2024, with six firms accounting for more than half of all new registrations. For IVAs registered in 2024, the one-year termination rate stood at 6.0%, compared to 5.8% for those registered in 2023. Meanwhile, the two-year termination rate for IVAs registered in 2023 decreased to 13.2% from 14.6% for 2022 arrangements. IVAs registered in 2022 had a three-year termination rate of 21.0%, with lifetime termination rates for those registered between 2016 and 2018 reaching approximately 34%.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

News