Martin’s Commercial Limited v Cineworld Cinemas Holdings Limited
[2023] EWHC 1925 (Ch)
Leicester Square (2015) Limited & Ors v Empire Cinema 2 Limited
10 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch)
High Court
A cinema landlord illegally re-entered the building because the tenant didn't pay rent during the pandemic. The court decided a COVID-19 law protected the tenant, and the landlord's attempts to argue otherwise were rejected. The tenant gets the building back.
Key Facts
- •Empire Cinema (tenant) failed to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- •Landlords re-entered the premises, claiming forfeiture.
- •Empire argued the moratorium under the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 was still in effect.
- •Arbitration determined Empire owed the full rent, but the appeal period was still running.
- •Landlords granted licenses to new occupiers immediately after re-entry.
- •Empire paid the arrears the same day as the re-entry.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment principles
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 39 (Ch)
Purposive interpretation of statutes
WT Ramsay v IRC [1982] AC 300, Cadogan v Morris (1999) 31 HLR 732, Rossendale BC v Hurstwood Properties [2022] AC 690
Illegality defence
Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 540, Grondona v Stoffel & Co [2021] AC 540
Waiver, estoppel, and abandonment
A A Amram Ltd v Bremar Company Ltd [1966] 1 Lloyds Rep 494
Forfeiture and possession
Serjeant v Nash Field & Co [1903] 2 KB 304, Canas Property Co Ltd v KL Television Services Ltd [1970] 2 QB 433, Fuller v Judy Properties (1992) 64 P&CR 25
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed in all respects except for the statutory construction point.
The judge correctly interpreted the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 to mean the moratorium remained in effect until the appeal period expired, regardless of the tenant's intentions.
Illegality defence rejected.
The landlords' inconsistent approach to the arbitration and appeal rendered their illegality argument incoherent and illogical.
Waiver, estoppel, and abandonment arguments rejected.
Insufficient evidence to support the claim that Empire waived its rights or was estopped from asserting the moratorium.
No compelling reason for trial found.
The subsequent forfeiture proceedings did not provide a compelling reason to delay a decision on the tenant's current possession claim.
Costs order upheld, except for a minor point relating to the joinder date.
Insufficient information to review the costs order.