UK: Tenant Insolvency: Beware The Surrender

Last Updated: 10 April 2013
Article by Richard Flenley

In these times of high street failure and intensely difficult trading conditions, the incidence of tenant insolvency is on the rise. It is a sign of the times that HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster rank as three of many examples of failure within a list of approaching 250 businesses that have failed since 2007 affecting in excess of 23,000 properties.

Against this backdrop it is inevitable that commercial landlords will seek to minimise their losses by negotiating with liquidators and administrators with a view to securing a commercial resolution that both secures payment of some of the liabilities whilst also freeing up property for onward letting. Many would rather do this than run the risk of a potentially far worse deal by waiting for the insolvency to be completed.

However, landlords need to tread carefully and make sure that the settlement reached reflects the deal that they think has been struck. By contrast, insolvency practitioners also need to be clear as to the liabilities that are being compromised and those that remain.

Failure to give these issues proper regard can be costly, as the landlord found out in the case of Re Teathers Ltd (in Liquidation), also known as Baroque Investments Limited v Heis [2012] EWHC 2886 (Ch).

In that case, Baroque Investments Limited (“Baroque”) was the owner of freehold property known as Beaufort House, 15 St Botolph Street, London, EC3. The fifth floor was let to Teathers Ltd (“Teathers”) on the terms of four leases dated 31 July 1991, 7 May 1996, 30 July 1997 and 14 December 2005. Each lease was for a term of years expiring on 30 March 2014 and each contained a tenant covenant on the following terms (or at least of the same effect):

“to keep the demised premises … in good and substantial repair and condition … and in such repair and condition … to yield up the same at the expiration or sooner determination of the term”.

Then, on 14 December 2005, Teathers entered into two licences for alterations with Baroque (the alterations in question involving alterations to the 5th floor including the infill of an atrium area) that provided, amongst other things, that:

“Before the end of the Lease the Tenant is to dismantle and remove the Works and reinstate the Premises to the same plan and design as before the carrying out of the Works and as if the Works had not been carried out (unless and to the extent that the Landlord requests that it does not do so)”.

On 23 October 2008, Richard Heis and Samantha Rae Bewick (“the Liquidators”) were appointed as administrators of Teathers and then later appointed as joint liquidators on 8 October 2009. On 13 November 2009, Teathers, acting via the Liquidators, surrendered each of the leases (“the Surrenders”) on terms that included the following provision:

“[Baroque] and [Teathers] respectively release each other from the rights and obligations contained in the Lease and from all liability in respect of any breach of those rights andobligations whether arising on or after, but not before, the date of this Surrender”.

On the same day Baroque relet the 5th floor to Instant Offices Management LLP for a term of four years at an annual rent of £706,550 with an initial rent free period of 19 months.

Following the surrender, Baroque sought to claim various sums via the liquidation, the majority of which were accepted by the Liquidators following negotiation save for, in the main, a dilapidations claim totalling £1,212,395. That claim was essentially based on the provisions of the leases and licence for alterations referred to above with the essential issue between the parties being whether or not Teathers’ liability for those claims had been released by the terms of the Surrenders set out above.

This issue was heard as a preliminary issue by the then Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Andrew Morritt (“the Chancellor”).


In his Judgment, the Chancellor first considered the issue of the reinstatement liability and the question of when the obligation to reinstate the premises arose. Baroque contended that the liability was such that it must have arisen before the completion of the Surrenders and, on this basis, that the terms of the Surrenders did not release Teathers from this element of the dilapidations liability. The rationale for this view was that the liability was one that required reinstatement “before the end of the Lease” and the Surrenders themselves marked the end of the Lease.

The Liquidators, on the other hand, maintained that cannot have arisen before completion of the Surrenders on the true construction of the obligations. The Liquidators stated that, without the words “before the end of the Lease”, Teathers would have had a reasonable time after termination of the Lease to carry out the reinstatement works (Matthey v Curling [1922] 2 AC 180,240 refers in this regard) and that that the words in question had at their core the intention of limiting the time available to Teathers completing this work. Further, because the term of the leases did not expire until 30 March 2014, there cannot have been any breach of the reinstatement obligation at the time of the Surrenders on 13 November 2009.

The Chancellor agreed with the Liquidators and stated:

“The licences gave to the tenant the full period of the term created by the leases within which to carry out the requisite reinstatement. Accordingly, as at 13 November 2009, there was no breach of the obligations to reinstate. … In my view the inescapable consequence is that that potential liability was released by the surrenders”.

The claim for reinstatement therefore failed.


The Chancellor then went on to consider the case for Teathers continuing to be bound by its repairing obligations.

At Trial, both parties concurred (as supported by the decision in Ebbetts v Conquest (1900) 82 LT 560) that the repairing covenant in question contained two obligations:

1. To keep the demised premises in good repair during the term; and

2. To yield up the demised premises in good repair at the expiration or sooner determination of the term.

It was not in dispute that obligation 2 was released by the Surrenders. However, there was dispute as to whether or not obligation 1 was so released and central to this claim was the terms of section 18(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (“s.18(1)”). S.18(1) states (so far as is relevant to this case):

“Damages for a breach of a covenant or agreement to keep … premises in repair during the currency of a lease, … shall in no case exceed the amount (if any) by which the value of the reversion (whether immediate or not) in the premises is diminished owing to the breach of such covenant or agreement as aforesaid; …”.

The position put forward by Baroque was that (i) whilst the normal date for the assessment of damages is the date of the breach (i.e. the day before the Surrenders on 13 November 2009) the Court was not bound to assume the continuation of the leases when assessing the amount of damage to the reversion but was bound to have regard to the subsequent events of surrender and reletting; and (ii) taking this position into account, the level of the claim pursuant to s.18(1) should be 15 of the 19 months’ rent free that had to be offered to the incoming tenant in addition to the rent reduction that Baroque had to agree in order to speedily re-let the premises and in so doing mitigate its losses.

The Liquidators disputed both the method of calculation of the purported claim as well as the proposition that for the purposes of a valuation under s.18(1) in circumstances where the term of the lease has not expired by effluxion of time it was not a pre-requisite that there be an assumption made that the lease to which the reversion is subject is continuing.

On that basis, the Liquidators relied on the decision of the Court Appeal in Hanson v Newman [1934] CH 298, 306 and, more specifically, to the statement by Romer LJ that:

“Whatever may be the strict meaning at law of the word “reversion” there can, I think, be no doubt as to the meaning that that word bears in the section of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, with which we are concerned here. The reversion in that section, if it be a freehold reversion, means the freehold subject to the lease, and valuing the reversion for the purposes of the section you must value the freehold subject to so much, if any, of the term of the lease as remains in existence”.

The Liquidators therefore, taking this formulation into account, contended that in this case the claim as made out by Baroque was inconsistent with both the fact of the release of the covenant to yield up in good repair and the terms of s.18(1). In this context, the Liquidators adopted the view that what the claim needed to do was to compare the value of the reversion with the property in its actual state with its repaired state, not simply to suggest that the claim should be formulated on the basis of the costs that Baroque had to incur to secure a speedy re-letting of the unit.

The Chancellor agreed with the Liquidators when he stated that:

“It is clear from Mr Grey’s [Baroque’s key witness] description of how he arrived at the figure … that he did not following the processes required by s.18(1). He made no attempt to value the reversion … in either its actual or repaired state but assumed that the difference between those valuations would be equal to the loss sustained by Baroque on reletting … It may or not be. Accordingly, the Liquidators were right to reject the proof of debt so calculated”.

The Chancellor went on to conclude that, taking the above into account, whilst technically meaning that a claim for damage to the reversion pursuant to s.18(1) is possible in this or a similar case, the circumstances within which such a claim would be available are limited as under no circumstances can the requirements imposed by s.18(1) be altered and, accordingly, “it may be difficult to prove that the effect of the disrepair has been to cause any diminution in the value of the reversion”.


As indicated at the outset of this article, the consequences of failing to accurately record the terms of a surrender so that they take into account all of the claims that are anticipated can be costly.

In this case, Baroque thought that it would be able to recover in excess of £1million over and above the specific terms agreed. However, by leaving this element outside of the express terms of the surrenders (or at least not fully particularised within those terms), Baroque ran the risk of being unable to recover its full losses on re-letting. Given that the re-letting completed on the same day as the Surrenders, Baroque should, one would have thought, have been in a position to fully particularise these losses and negotiate a far more robust resolution than the one reached.

Ultimately the risk that Barqoue ran failed to pay off.

What this result should do therefore is bring into sharper focus the need to ensure that, whilst such Surrenders can be an effective way of drawing an end to leasehold obligations in the case of tenant insolvency, they are treated with caution, carefully negotiated and meticulously prepared.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Richard Flenley
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.