Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns.
The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd. The tenants (Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Cine-UK Ltd) are both cinema operators forced to close as a result of the legislation introduced during the pandemic (along with non-essential retailers, restaurants and gyms).
Both tenants argued that rent should not be paid in respect of the periods when it was unlawful to operate a cinema from the demised premises for the following reasons:
- It was fundamental to the leases that the premises would be capable of lawful use. The Covid legislation caused a failure of that and the landlords would be unjustly enriched in respect of any rent paid during the periods the premises could not operate as cinemas;
- It should be implied that the tenants be relieved of the obligation to pay rent when they could not lawfully use the premises for the purposes they were intended.
Further, in respect of the Cine-UK case, the tenant argued that rent should not be payable if the premises were ‘damaged’ and ‘not fit for occupational use’. The tenant said that the term ‘damage’ encompassed financial and non-physical damage.
All three arguments were rejected by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the landlords that the rent paid was consideration for the exclusive use of the premises for the terms of the lease and rejected the tenants’ argument that there was an assumption that the premises could be lawfully used as cinemas. Put simply, the landlords’ argument was consistent with the terms of the lease, and the tenants’ was not. The judgment also drew a clear distinction between damage to the tenants and damage to the property, meaning that the rent cesser provisions were not triggered.
The judgment is another example of the failure of tenants’ arguments to avoid paying rent during the pandemic and demonstrates that reaching agreement with the landlord is likely to be the most commercial solution.
The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 introduced the arbitration scheme in relation to ‘ring fenced’ arrears accrued during the pandemic. Landlords and tenants have until 23 September 2022 to refer matters to an arbitrator; any tenants struggling to reach agreement with their landlord should consider utilising this process whilst it is available.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Care Fertility Group on acquisition of CRGW
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Press Release
Browne Jacobson partner Jeanne Kelly elected President of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise on Rcapital’s strategic exit from facilities and property services specialist Triosgroup
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
On-Demand
'Autonomous vehicles: what the future holds' on-demand
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Opinion
The UK market offers the best value for commercial real estate
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
Product distribution – how to protect yourself from an early exit
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
On-Demand
Automotive webinar - EV charging points: contractual and liability issues to be aware of
On-Demand
Automotive webinar - Grant Funding and Collaboration Agreements
In this session, we examined the legal framework around grant funded collaborations and discussed the key risks to be aware of, including IP ownership and compliance with grant terms.
On-Demand
Automotive webinar - Commercial Contracts
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises sustainable waste solution provider Covanta Europe on its new Wellingborough based aggregate processing plant
Press Release - #BeingBrowneJacobson
From associate to partner in an investment lifecycle - Ryan's story
Press Release - #BeingBrowneJacobson
Browne Jacobson helps the Civil Aviation Authority take off with its modernisation masterplan
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Press Release
Court of Appeal makes plea for legally enforceable arbitration for FRAND disputes
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Legal Update
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.