Empyrean Protocol

Empyrean Intelligence Console

← Back to briefs

Kiko UK Ltd v Jamino Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 720 (Comm) (20 January 2025)

Source: Open mirrored case · Original bailii.org

Sanctions — Geo ✓

Executive Summary

  • Kiko UK Ltd (original tenant) entered a 10-year lease in 2016, assigned to Jamino Ltd (first defendant) in 2019.
  • Kiko provided an Authorised Guarantee Agreement (AGA) and Pianoforte Holdings S.p.A (second defendant) gave a parent company guarantee.
  • Jamino Ltd defaulted and entered liquidation in May 2024; its liquidator disclaimed the lease in June 2024 under Insolvency Act (IA) s.178.
  • Central legal issue: effect of the disclaimer on Kiko’s and Pianoforte’s continuing liabilities under the lease and guarantees.
  • Court held that the AGA must be construed as a whole; Kiko’s liability does not automatically terminate on disclaimer despite clause 6.2.
  • The case clarifies the interplay between IA s.178 disclaimer rights and the continuing obligations under AGAs post-1995 Act.

Sanctions Highlights

  • — No sanctions implications identified in the case.

Emerging Risks

  • Potential uncertainty in lease guarantee liabilities post-liquidation disclaimer may increase litigation risk for guarantors.
  • Parent companies providing guarantees face exposure despite liquidation disclaimers by subsidiaries.
  • Newly discovered payments (rent deposit, £40,000 cash) may complicate indemnity claims and defenses.
  • Risk of trial delay or appeal may affect timely resolution and increase legal costs.

Geopolitical Impact

  • UK jurisdictional precedent reinforces the legal framework governing lease assignments, liquidations, and guarantees.
  • Confirms the UK’s commercial law approach to insolvency and landlord-tenant relationships, relevant for international investors and multinational corporate groups operating in London.
  • Highlights the importance of clear contractual drafting under English law to manage cross-border insolvency risks.

Economic Intelligence

  • The ruling impacts commercial lease risk management in London’s prime retail locations (Oxford Street).
  • Parent company guarantees remain a critical risk mitigation tool but with nuanced exposure post-liquidation disclaimer.
  • Potential cost savings from early summary judgment denied; prolonged litigation may increase financial burdens on parties.
  • The case underscores the financial risks for parent companies in guaranteeing subsidiaries’ lease obligations.

Strategic Recommendations

  • Review and clarify AGA and parent company guarantee clauses to explicitly address disclaimer scenarios.
  • Monitor liquidations closely to assess disclaimer impacts on lease-related liabilities.
  • Consider alternative risk mitigation strategies beyond guarantees, such as insurance or escrow arrangements.
  • Prepare for potential litigation delays and appeals by allocating sufficient legal resources.
  • Advise clients on the importance of comprehensive due diligence on lease assignments and guarantee agreements in UK commercial property deals.

---

**Source Notes:**

Case Title: *Sanctions Intelligence Digest*

Link: [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/720.txt](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/720.txt)

Brief metadata