Termination of Tenancies for Tenant Default - Law Commission
Termination of Tenancies for Tenant Default - Law Commission
Termination of Tenancies for Tenant Default - Law Commission
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
insolvency process having the same effect’ (which would be sufficient to deal with<br />
any future changes)”. English Partnerships suggested that, in the case <strong>of</strong><br />
companies, tenant insolvency should include all current <strong>for</strong>ms <strong>of</strong> insolvency and<br />
related processes, such as liquidation, receivership, voluntary arrangements and<br />
should expressly incorporate “any arrangements whereby the tenant’s creditors<br />
are not to be discharged immediately and in full”. The Property Bar Association<br />
suggested that the definition should include “a list <strong>of</strong> insolvency events which<br />
may be amended or added to by statutory instrument”. Herbert Smith suggested<br />
that insolvency “should cover the whole range <strong>of</strong> company and individual<br />
insolvency events”.<br />
Re<strong>for</strong>m recommendations<br />
3.83 We do not intend to alter the principle that it is <strong>for</strong> the parties to negotiate and<br />
agree terms <strong>of</strong> the tenancy dealing with the tenant’s financial circumstances.<br />
Where the breach <strong>of</strong> one or more covenants <strong>of</strong> this nature comprises tenant<br />
default, the landlord should be entitled to take termination action.<br />
3.84 However, it may well be that the tenant’s financial circumstances are such that<br />
they come within the protection <strong>of</strong> the statutory insolvency regime. This regime is<br />
designed to balance the interests <strong>of</strong> the insolvent individual or company and their<br />
creditors. Our principal concern is not to interfere with that balance.<br />
3.85 We there<strong>for</strong>e intend that the protection from <strong>for</strong>feiture currently af<strong>for</strong>ded to<br />
tenants should apply with equal <strong>for</strong>ce to termination action under our statutory<br />
scheme. We recommend that this should be achieved by appropriate<br />
amendments to the Insolvency Acts, rather than express provision in the statutory<br />
termination scheme, as we believe that this will best avoid any potential conflict<br />
between our scheme and existing legislation. 63 This approach does not require<br />
the draft Bill itself to define insolvency <strong>for</strong> the purposes <strong>of</strong> the statutory scheme.<br />
3.86 We do not, however, intend to replicate the anomaly discussed in the CP<br />
whereby a landlord may not commence any action or other legal proceedings in<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> a tenancy held by a bankrupt tenant without the leave <strong>of</strong> the court but<br />
may physically re-enter. Without amendment, the existing legislation would<br />
prohibit a landlord from making a termination claim against a bankrupt tenant<br />
without the leave <strong>of</strong> the court but would not prevent the service <strong>of</strong> a summary<br />
termination notice. We there<strong>for</strong>e recommend that the relevant legislation should<br />
be amended so that a landlord must also seek the leave <strong>of</strong> the court be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
serving a summary termination notice on a bankrupt tenant. 64<br />
3.87 We recommend that the insolvency <strong>of</strong> the tenant should not, in itself,<br />
comprise tenant default. 65<br />
63 Schedule 5 to the draft Bill effects these amendments.<br />
64 This amendment is also effected by Schedule 5 to the draft Bill.<br />
65 However, where the tenancy contains a covenant by the tenant, <strong>for</strong> example to remain<br />
solvent or not to commit an act <strong>of</strong> insolvency, breach <strong>of</strong> that covenant should comprise<br />
tenant default (unless it is an excepted covenant): see para 3.28 and following.<br />
46