Recover rent and service charge under a commercial lease in COVID-19
An encouraging judgement for Landlords has been handed down by the courts in the recent case of Commerz Real Investmentgesellschaft mbH v TFS Stores Limited which centred on the Landlord’s ability to pursue claims against a Tenant for rent arrears due to the COVID-19 restrictions. This case is the first High Court ruling on a non-payment issue where COVID-19 has been argued as the grounds for the defence.
The Facts
In March 2020, the government introduced a number of measures to protect the UK economy and the public which included the closure of all non-essential retail businesses. They also announced that commercial landlords were unable to forfeit commercial leases and evict their tenants for non-payment of rent.
TFS Stores Limited (“the Tenant” who is trading as the Fragrance Shop) occupied a premises in Westfield Shopping Centre in London. The COVID-19 restrictions implemented in March 2020 led to forced store closure. The Tenant had not paid their rent since April 2020 and there were also a number of outstanding service charge debts which had accrued.
In December 2020, the Landlord successfully applied for summary judgement against the Tenant for the unpaid rent and service charges.
The Defence
The Tenant relied on three grounds to their defence:
- Firstly, the Tenant claimed that the Landlord’s claim for the payment of the arrears was issued prematurely and therefore in breach of the Code of Practice for Commercial Property Relationships during the COVID-19 Pandemic (“the Code of Practice”) which was put in place to assist discussions between landlords and tenants over rental payments.
- Secondly, the Landlord was taking advantage of a loophole in the Government’s restrictions on the recovery of rent arrears and the COVID-19 measures had been put in place to restrict the Landlord’s ability to pursue a claim for rent arrears had been restricted
- Thirdly, the Tenant argued that the loss of rent should have been covered by the Landlord’s insurance policy and the provisions of the lease placed an obligation on the Landlord to insure against the loss of rent resulting from a notifiable disease and/or government action and must claim under the loss of rent insurance policy before commencing proceedings to recover unpaid rent.
The Judgement
These defences were unsuccessful on the basis that the Tenant had no real prospect of defending the claim at trial.
In relation to each of the Tenant’s grounds of defence, the Court held the following:
- The Code of Practice is voluntary and does not override UK law. It therefore cannot provide grounds of defence for the non-payment of rent. In addition, the Code of Practice does not change the legal relationship of the landlord and tenant. The ruling on this point is particularly interesting as the Code of Practice has been cited by many tenants as grounds for non-payment of rent. This judgement makes it clear that the Code of Practice will not change the obligation on the tenant to pay rent under the terms of the lease.
- The Court held that there was no loophole. The government did place restrictions on some of the remedies available to a Landlord, but there is no legal restriction on the Landlord’s ability to pursue a claim for unpaid rent or service charge against the Tenant.
- The terms of the lease only stipulated that there was an obligation on the Landlord to insure against the risks included in the definition – they did not include a notifiable disease or government action. Even if there was such an obligation on the landlord, this did not mean there was an obligation on the landlord to insure against any business interruption losses suffered by the Tenant. The Court held that there was no reason for the Landlord to turn to an insurance policy for unpaid rent as opposed to imposing liability on the Tenant for unpaid rent.
- The rent cesser terms in the lease only applied to the limited circumstances stipulated in the lease which was in the event of physical damage to the premises. There was no basis for the provisions to apply to a situation where the premises were closed due to a legal requirement.
The Impact
This is a positive decision for landlords who will be eager to recover outstanding arrears from their tenants, particularly in light of the government’s restrictions easing. We look forward to seeing how further defences play out in future cases concerning the non-payment of rent due to COVID-19 and also to see whether this judgement is suggestive of the court’s attitude to Landlords in relation to these types of claims.
If you would like to discuss anything raised in this article further, please contact our Commercial Property department using the contact form below.
This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.
Sign up
Enter your email address for legal updates on Property & Construction Law.
Latest Insights - sign up to our Emailers
Our Emailers will bring you the latest news and insights from our legal teams as we look at the key talking points in life and in law.
Our insights will include articles, podcast discussion and information about our events and services.
You can sign up to as many as you wish and you can opt out at any time.
Sign up to our Emailers
Latest News & Insights
Discrimination in the UK Construction Industry
Breaking Through the Concrete Ceiling The construction industry is often perceived as being...
Typical Amendments to a JCT
The Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) publishes standard forms of building contracts that are used...
Building the Future – The Long-Term Plan for Construction
At the end of January 2023, Building Magazine published the Building the Future Commission’s...
Statutory Obligations under Commercial Leases
Fire Risk Assessments and Asbestos Surveys Legal requirements, known as statutory obligations, are...
Separating from a partner you live with
The law surrounding cohabitating partners is a minefield and the unfortunate reality is that when...
Holding Property with your Partner
Love is in the air but how should you hold your property with your partner? Have you asked your...
Top Legal Insights
Contract Law
Material Breach of Contract
What is a ‘material’ breach of contract by a party to a commercial contract? This is a critical issue regularly considered by the courts. What constitutes a material breach and what are the remedies?
Property Law
Commercial Lease: The Financial impact on Landlord and Tenant
Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the restrictions now in place to control its spread, are having a significant effect on many business sectors.
Divorce and Family Law
Divorce in Lockdown: Can I get some discreet legal advice?
We have spoken to clients who are unfortunately experiencing some family issues, and would like to obtain expert legal advice, yet don’t know how...
Land & Property Dispute
Restrictive Covenants – The Price of Modification
Having identified that your land is burdened by a restrictive covenant and for the purposes of this article the covenant in question will be that only one residential building can be erected on the land. What do you do next?
Award winning legal advice
Herrington Carmichael offers legal advice to UK and International businesses as well as individuals and families. Rated as a ‘Leading Firm 2024’ by the legal directory Legal 500 and listed in The Times ‘Best Law Firms 2023 & 2024’. Herrington Carmichael has offices in London, Farnborough, Reading, and Ascot.
London
60 St Martins Lane, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4JS
Camberley
Building 2 Watchmoor Park, Riverside Way, Camberley, Surrey GU15 3YL
Wokingham (Appointment only)
4 The Courtyard, Denmark Street, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 2AZ
info@herrington-carmichael.com
© 2020 Herrington Carmichael LLP. Registered in England and Wales company number OC322293.
Herrington Carmichael LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Privacy | Legal Notices, T&Cs, Complaints Resolution | Cookies | Client Feedback