Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd and Others (Applicants/Claimants) v Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd ((in Administration)) and Others (Respondents/Defendants)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeHH JUDGE PELLING QC
Judgment Date28 March 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWHC 951 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: 9334/2011
CourtChancery Division
Date28 March 2012

[2012] EWHC 951 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Before:

His Honour Judge Pelling QC

(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Case No: 9334/2011

Between:
Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd & Ors
Applicants/Claimants
and
Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd (In Administration) & Ors
Respondents/Defendants

STEPHEN JOURDAN QC and BLAIR LEAHY (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner) appeared on behalf of the Claimants

ANTONY ZACAROLI QC and STEPHEN ROBINS (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants

Approved Judgment

HH JUDGE PELLING QC

Introduction

1

This is the hearing of four applications by the applicants, who are landlords of four properties that were let to companies that are now all in administration, by which applications the applicants apply for

a. permission under Paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (" IA") to forfeit the leases of the properties; and

b. a direction under IAParagraph 74 of Schedule B1 requiring the administrators to pay in full the rent under each lease that accrued due prior to the commencement of the administrations.

There is no dispute of fact that is material for the purpose of determining the applications. Shortly prior to the commencement of this hearing, the respondents (hereafter "the administrators") gave permission to the applicants (hereafter "the landlords") to forfeit the leases. That element of the application remains live only in relation to costs, which have not been agreed. I return to that issue in more detail at the end of this judgment.

The Factual Background.

2

Each of the companies in administration (hereafter "the companies") is a company within a group of companies known as the Lumina Group. The business of each of the companies was the operation of a nightclub. Until the companies entered administration, the Lumina Group was one of the largest operators of such venues in the United Kingdom.

3

The group started to experience financial difficulties in June 2011. Rent was due under each of the relevant leases quarterly in advance. In June and again in September 2011, the companies sought a variation of the leases so as to enable them to pay rent monthly. These requests were refused. On 28 October 2011 the companies were placed in administration. On 31 October 2011 the administrators confirmed an intention to trade the venues on until 1 January 2012 even though they were not in a position to pay rent. On 1 December 2011 the landlord sought permission from the administrators to forfeit the leases. This was necessary because IAParagraph 43(4) of Schedule B1 precludes a landlord from exercising a right to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry other than with the consent of the administrator of the company tenant concerned or order of the court. On 2 December 2011 the administrators refused their consent.

4

It is not necessary that I set out the terms of the various leases in detail. Each lease contained an express proviso for re-entry in the event that rent due remained unpaid for a period of either 14 or 21 days after the due date. Rent was payable, as I have said, quarterly in advance on each quarter day. By the end of November, there was a quarter's rent outstanding for each property that had been outstanding for in excess of the relevant period. In each case bar one the sum was the quarter's rent that fell due for payment on 29 September 2011. In relation to one club, the sum outstanding represented service charges due on or before 29 September 2011. It follows and it is common ground that, but for IAParagraph 43(4) of Schedule B1, the landlords would have been entitled to forfeit the leases.

5

On 11 February 2011 the administrators informed the landlords that the businesses operated by the companies had been sold to a newly-incorporated company called Ranimul 2 Ltd (hereafter "Ranimul"), a company incorporated on 5 December 2011 by the or some of the persons interested in the Lumina Group. The terms of the agreement between the administrators and Ranimul were confidential but, following limited disclosure pursuant to an order of the Registrar, this much is apparent:

a. Ranimul agreed to seek the landlord's consent to the assignment of the leases to Ranimul;

b. Ranimul would pay £50,000 for each of two of the leases and £74,075 for one of the others, making a total of £174,075. Each sum was payable severally on completion of the relevant assignment;

c. The administrators agreed that Ranimul could occupy the properties pending assignment for the purpose of enabling Ranimul to continue to operate the venues as nightclubs; and

d. Ranimul agreed to pay the administrators an amount equal to the quarterly rent and service charges for the period of their occupancy.

6

On 13 December 2011 the landlords' solicitors served Section 146 notices on the companies on the basis that by parting with possession without obtaining the licence of the landlords, the companies had acted in breach of covenant. Ranimul subsequently decided not to proceed in relation to one of the properties and in consequence on 23 December 2011 the administrators offered to surrender the lease relevant to that property.

7

By 13 December 2011 the landlords had identified a prospective tenant willing to take assignment of the existing leases or at any rate to lease the premises on similar terms to those that applied under the leases to the companies. The landlords offered the administrators £150,000 (to be set off against the sums otherwise due from the administrators to the landlords) if the administrators would agree to the assignment of the leases to the landlords' prospective tenant. The administrator did not accept that offer and it was withdrawn shortly before this hearing. The prospective tenants identified by the landlords remain willing to lease the properties but, in relation to one property, on terms that are now less advantageous than the terms of the existing lease. The landlords maintain that this adverse change could have been avoided if the permission to forfeit had been granted earlier than it was.

The Issues

8

As I have said, the substantive issue concerning forfeiture has now been resolved because the administrators have given permission to the landlords to forfeit the leases. The substantive issue that remains concerns outstanding rent.

9

As I have explained, the rent payable under the leases is payable quarterly in advance. The quarterly payments due on 29 September 2011 fell due for payment prior to the appointment of the administrators. The issue between the parties concerns whether in the events that have happened the administrators are under an obligation to pay the rent that accrued due on 29 September as an expense of the administration even though those sums became due prior to the administrators' appointment taking effect.

10

The landlord's case is that where a landlord seeks to forfeit a lease after an administration or liquidation has commenced and permission is refused, all the rent that is unpaid becomes payable irrespective of when it accrued due, if and to the extent it applies to a period of occupation by the administrators or liquidators concerned. The administrators submit that this is a heretical approach and the only rent that can become payable as an expense of the administration is rent falling due after (a) the administration has commenced and (b) the administrators have elected to retain the relevant property for the purposes of the administration or liquidation. They accept that the Apportionment Act 1870 is of no application to sums payable in advance and in consequence they accept that the whole of the sum due for the March quarter is payable as an administration expense even though permission to forfeit was given only a few days after the March quarter day.

The Statutory Framework

11

The Administration Code is now contained in IASchedule B1 augmented by the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IRs").

12

Insofar as is material, Schedule B1 provides:

"4. The administrator of a company must perform his functions as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable."

"43 …

(4) A landlord may not exercise a right of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry in relation to premises let to the company except (a) with the consent of the administrator, or (b) with the permission of the court."

"74

(1) A creditor or member of a company in administration may apply to the court claiming that

(a) the administrator is acting or has acted so as unfairly to harm the interests of the applicant (whether alone or in common with some or all other members or creditors), or

(b) the administrator proposes to act in a way which would unfairly harm the interests of the applicant (whether alone or in common with some or all other members or creditors).

(2) A creditor or member of a company in administration may apply to the court claiming that the administrator is not performing his functions as quickly or as efficiently as is reasonably practicable.

(3) The court may

(a) grant relief;

(b) dismiss the application;

(c) adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally;

(d) make an interim order;

(e) make any other order it thinks appropriate.

(4) In particular, an order under this paragraph may

(a) regulate the administrator's exercise of his functions;

(b) require the administrator to do or not do a specified thing;

(c) require a creditors' meeting to be held for a specified purpose;

(d) provide for the appointment of an administrator to cease to have effect;

(e) make consequential provision."

13

Insofar as is material IRs Rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Jervis v Pillar Denton Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 February 2014
    ...even if the administrators were to give up occupation later in the same quarter. The corollary of that decision is Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd v Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch); [2013] 3 WLR 1132. In that case HH Judge Pelling QC decided that where a quarter's rent payable in adv......
  • Henry Anthony Shinners and Nicholas Myers (Joint Administrators of London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP) v London Trocadero (2015) LLP
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Court
    • 12 November 2019
    ...Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd [2010] Ch 455 and the decision of HHJ Judge Pelling QC in In re Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd [2014] Ch 165, a point to which I shall return. The pari passu rule 46 The pari passu rule is a fundamental principle of both corporate and personal inso......
  • Candey Ltd v Russell Crumpler
    • British Virgin Islands
    • High Court (British Virgin Islands)
    • 2 October 2020
    ...p 372. 30 (1871) LR 6 Ch App 462 at p 466. 31 33 & 34 Vict c. 35. 32 [1919] 1 Ch 416. 33 [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch), [2010] Ch 455. 34 [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch), [2014] Ch 35 [1895] 1 Ch 378. 36 [1970] 1 WLR 702. 37 [1992] Ch 505 at p 540. 38 [2015] EWCA Civ 189, [2015] Ch 87. 39 [2002] U......
  • Candey Ltd v Russell Crumpler
    • British Virgin Islands
    • High Court (British Virgin Islands)
    • 2 October 2020
    ...LR 6 Ch App 462 at p 466. 31 33 & 34 Vict c. 35. 32 [1919] 1 Ch 416. 33 [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch), [2010] Ch 455. 34 [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch), [2014] Ch 165. 35 [1895] 1 Ch 36 [1970] 1 WLR 702. 37 [1992] Ch 505 at p 540. 38 [1995] 2 AC 394 at 450. 39 [2015] EWCA Civ 189, [2015] Ch 87. 40 [......
15 firm's commentaries
  • Court Reforms And Arbitration: Courting Disaster
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 20 October 2014
    ...Nortel Networks UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch); [2010] 1 EGLR 25, Leisure Norwich (II) Ltd v Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd (in administration) [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch), and the first instance decision in Game (where the court followed Goldacre and Luminar, but granted permission to Prior to Goldacre, l......
  • Salvage Value: New Approach To Rent Recovery In Administration
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 12 March 2014
    ...Ltd (In Administration) [2009] EWHC 3389 (CH), [2010] Ch 44 and Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd v Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd (In Administration) [2012] EWHC 951, [2013] 3 WLR 1132), rent falling due before an administration did not qualify as an expense of the administration, even where the administr......
  • UK Court Of Appeal Overrules Goldacre And Luminar
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 26 February 2014
    ...Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch) Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd v Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd (in administration) [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch) Rule 2.67 Insolvency Rules 1986; Rule 4.218 Insolvency Rules 1986 relates to expenses of a liquidation AIB Capital Markets Plc & Anor......
  • European Perspective In Brief
    • European Union
    • Mondaq European Union
    • 2 April 2014
    ...(Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch); [2011] Ch 455 and Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd v Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch); [2013] 3 WLR 1132) relating to rent payable by a company in administration and whether an insolvent company's liability to pay rent will r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT