Sub-letter Never Paid Any Rent

[Kerrigan]

My OH encountered a strange case yesterday from one of her clients. Would like to hear input please.

Client had been subleasing a commercial unit from a main tenant. Client never engaged a solicitor and signed a wishy-washy contract drafted up by the main tenant.

Main tenant went into liquidation and a liquidator closed down their business but allowed my partners client to continue using the premises of the liquidated company. No rent was requested from liquidator, main tenant or landlord, neither was the sub-letter evicted from the premises at any given time. They decided at their own fruition to leave.

The landlord is now suing sub-letter for rents due, commencing post main tenant liquidation to the date of leave.

Simply a very bizarre setup.

The company my partner works for believes there is very little they can do to help the client apart from sending him backing to a solicitor.

 

[mf1]

Landlord could easily argue that by virtue of occupying the premises, after the liquidation, the sub letter acknowledged that they were in occupation and obliged to pay rent to the head landlord.

I don't really get this "victim" mentality thing: "No rent was requested from liquidator, main tenant or landlord, neither was the sub-letter evicted from the premises at any given time."

What about personal responsibility?

mf

 

[Kerrigan]

I agree with you Mf1.

It is one of the most strangest cases she has encountered to date. The client is arguing that he was not obliged to pay rent to the landlord as he had no agreement with same.