Tanfield Talks

SynopsisAndrew Brueton and Andrew Mace examine Section 423 of the Insolvency Act, which targets transactions designed to place assets beyond the reach of creditors. CasesInvest Bank PSC v El-Husseini [2022] EWCA 894 (Comm)El-Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4Purkiss v Kennedy [2025] EWCA Civ 268 and [2024] EWHC 1081 (Ch)Rangers Football Club 2012 Plc (In Liquidation) (formerly Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1Allen v Hurst & Ors [2022] EWHC 2649 (Ch)Sayers v Dixon [2025] EWHC 1886 (Ch)Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF & Anor v SoftBank & Ors [2025] EWHC 2631 (Ch) Legislationss423, 424, 425 Insolvency Act 1986

Synopsis Martin Young and Nora Wannagat provide an introduction to issues arising when a corporate client faces liability for business rates and the impact of insolvency. Citations Cases:Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114Re Toshoku Finance (UK) plc [2002] 1 WLR 671Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)Laing (John) & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Area Assessment Committee [1948] 2 KB 116, [1948] 1 All ER 943, 46 LGR 321, 112 JP 304, [1948] LJR 1619, 64 TLR 407, 151 EG 411R (Secretary of State for Health & Social Care) v Harlow DC [2021] EWHC 909 AdminKaye v South Oxfordshire District Council [2013] EWHC 4165 (Ch), [2014] 2 All ER 1019, [2014] 2 BCLC 383, [2014] Bus LR 597, [2014] BPIR 416, [2014] All ER (D) 134 (Jan)Re Nortel GmbH (in administration) [2013] UKSC 52, [2014] AC 209, [2013] 4 All ER 887, [2013] 3 WLR 504, [2013] 2 BCLC 135, [2013] Bus LR 1056, (2013) Times, 19 August, [2013] BPIR 866, [2013] All ER (D) 283 (Jul) Legislation:Schedule B1, Insolvency Act 1986, para 3r.3.50 and 3.51 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016r.6.42 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1058) and in particular Regulation 18Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/386) 

Piers Harrison and Ceri Edmonds discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision in A1 Properties v Tudor Studios RTM. This case resets the approach of courts to minor procedural errors when attempting to comply with the often complex requirements of property statutes.1:11   The “old approach”- where there is a question of statutory interpretation, whether the statutory provision is mandatory or directory.2:02  A change of approach following Soneji. Can Parliament have intended complete invalidity for non-compliance?2:59   Natt v Osmond – Court of Appeal said property cases were a question of statutory construction so breach always had the same result irrespective.3:51   Elim Court – the Court of Appeal said there had been a forgivable and immaterial mistake and the claim notice was still valid.5:18   A1 Properties – explanation of the Supreme Court decision. It looked at the validity of the process following the absence of a notice ie whether there has been prejudice.8:18  What is the status now of Natt v Osmond?12:59 Discussion of different factual scenarios and how they are impacted by A1 Properties.13:15  Scenario 1 – the notice gives insufficient time in the context of the 1993 Act.14:47 Scenario 2 – late service of a counter-notice.16:33 Scenario 3 – failure to attach a plan to a claim notice.17:30 Scenario 4 – failure to set out the prices proposed in the initial notice.18:47 Scenario 5 – failure to serve an intermediate landlord or third party.21:12  Scenario 6 – late notice to a third party.22:14  A1 Properties looked at right to manage not enfranchisement. This is important as there are far more variables in enfranchisement cases.24:50 The principles established by A1 Properties.Philip Rainey KC and Mark Loveday acted for the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP) in A1 Properties. You can read more about the case here.

Edward Denehan and Lorenzo Leoni consider and discuss the Law Commissions’ Consultation Paper on the security of tenure provisions for business tenants conferred by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the "Act"), and the pros and cons of the alternative security of tenure models advanced by the Law Commission.1:49  An overview of the current regulation of business tenancies.4:03  Tenancies protected by section 23 of the Act.5:21  Tenancies excluded from protection - section 43 of the Act.5:39  Contracting out of the Act under section 38 of the Act and Regulatory Reform Business Tenancies (England & Wales) Order 2003.8:49  There are 4 models considered by the Commission for security of tenure, ranging from minimum to maximum protection.9:38  Model 1 - minimum security of tenure.9:57  Model 2 - contracting in regime.10:25 Model 3 - the current system - a contracting out regime.10:40 Model 4 - return to original 1954 Act. Not possible to contract out of security for tenure.11:14  Law Commission pros and cons for all the models.20:29 What prompted the Law Commission to consult? What does the market want? Is change needed? Case citationsLandlord and Tenant Act 1954Law Commission’s Consultation Paper 1 Business Tenancies: the right to renew, models of security of tenure (Consultation Paper 266) dated 19 November 2024Regulatory Reform Business Tenancies (England & Wales) Order 2003Landlord & Tenant Act 1927Law of Property Act 1969Agricultural Holdings Act 1948

In this episode of Tanfield Talks, Daniel Dovar and Will Beetson explore some of the more recent(ish) cases on landlord’s grounds of opposition under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. All cases referred to in this episode are cited below. Additionally, Daniel Dovar’s book, Business Premises: Possession & Lease Renewal – 7th Edition, is shamelessly plugged in this episode and is available here. You may also wish to read Landlord and Tenant Review, which is a bi-monthly journal on all matters landlord and tenant to which Tanfield Chambers contributes, published by Sweet & Maxwell.  For more information on our landlord and tenant work, please visit our expertise page on the website. Cases mentionedGill v Lees News Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1178Betty’s Cafés Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [1959] AC 20S Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] UKSC 62McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 1133 (Ch)

Listen in as Adrian and Andrew provide some practical guidance on some of the problems everybody comes across with their everyday practice.  There is more information regarding Tanfield’s expertise in private client law on our expertise page: https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/area/private-client/

Annie Higgo, one of Tanfield's juniors, talks to Head of Pupillage, James Fieldsend about applying for pupillage and how she found life as a pupil at Tanfield.Listen in to hear all their useful tips for making applications and how to make the most of your pupillage.You can find more useful information on the Tanfield Pupillage pages. Introduction with James Fieldsend and Annie Higgo - 00:40 Pre-application 03:25Property Law 04:16Researching the right Chambers 06:58 Importance of Mini-Pupillages 11:20Application Process 17:28Mechanics of pupillage 33:20 (first six 35:40, second six 40:00)Life after pupillage 46:00

Join us for monthly discussions with members of Tanfield Chambers of all seniorities, from King’s Counsel to our pupils on the most interesting, relevant and pressing issues in business and property law today.