header-logo header-logo

03 August 2011
Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No guarantees for landlords

Lease guarantees left worthless by K/S Victoria Street case ruling

Commercial property landlords have been left high and dry after a significant Court of Appeal judgment on lease guarantees.

In K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser [2011] EWCA Civ 904, the court held that many guarantees are worthless, falling foul of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, s 25.

LexisPSL property solicitor Malcolm Dowden said: “There will be a lot of firms redrafting their precedent leases, and a lot of landlords looking with concern at guarantees that are now confirmed to be void. Lawyers who have given a clean bill of financial health to an investment purchase assuming the validity of guarantees may now have to reconsider that advice.”

According to Dowden, the ruling means that “even if freely given and fully intended to be legally binding, a guarantee given by the outgoing tenant’s guarantor in respect of the immediate assignee is void”.

He explained that the 1995 Act was “a hasty response to the perceived injustice of tenants remaining liable for premises long after they had parted with them. Parliament’s answer was to provide an automatic release from liability when the tenant of a lease granted on or after
1 January 1996 assigns it to a new tenant”.

Landlords argued that investment values would be slashed as a result, and their lobbying led to the creation of “authorised guarantee agreements” (AGAs). As a condition of giving its consent to an assignment, a landlord may require the outgoing tenant to guarantee performance by its assignee.

Dowden says: “Since 1996 landlords’ solicitors have tried a range of drafting approaches to work around the limitations of the 1995 Act.

“Only one of those approaches—requiring the guarantor to join in or to stand behind the tenant’s obligations in the AGA—survives the Court of Appeal ruling. Other perfectly rational approaches have been struck down—including the approach initially devised by Clifford Chance under which the outgoing tenant was required to assign first to its guarantor. The guarantor would become ‘tenant’ for a moment before passing the lease on to the actual assignee. Having been tenant for a moment, the guarantor could give an AGA.”

He said landlords may now be deterred from consenting to lease assignments where the covenant strength of the assignee is unproven, “increasing the risk of high street shop units and other commercial properties remaining empty and unused”.

Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll