774:'s third characteristic I am inclined to think that it qualifies as a floating charge, and cannot be a fixed charge, whatever may be its other characteristics. Suppose, for example, a case where an express assignment of a specific debt by way of security were accompanied by a provision that reserved to the assignor the right, terminable by written notice from the assignee, to collect the debt and to use the proceeds for its (the assignor's) business purposes, ie, a right, terminable on notice, for the assignor to withdraw the proceeds of the debt from the security. This security would, in my opinion, be a floating security notwithstanding the express assignment. The assigned debt would be specific and ascertained but its status as a security would not. Unless and until the right of the assignor to collect and deal with the proceeds were terminated, the security would retain its floating characteristic. Or suppose a case in which the charge were expressed to come into existence on the future occurrence of some event and then to be a fixed charge over whatever assets of a specified description the chargor might own at that time. The contractual rights thereby granted would, in my opinion, be properly categorised as a floating security. There can, in my opinion, be no difference in categorisation between the grant of a fixed charge expressed to come into existence on a future event in relation to a specified class of assets owned by the chargor at that time and the grant of a floating charge over the specified class of assets with cystallisation taking place on the occurrence of that event. I endeavoured to make this point in
698:
the benefit of the chargee's security. This is the only method which is known to Scots law which, as I have said, insists upon assignation of the book debts to the security holder and its intimation to the company's debtor as the equivalent of their delivery. One can, of course, be confident where this method is used that the book debts will be permanently appropriated to the security which is given to the chargee. But a company that wishes to continue to trade will usually find the commercial consequences of such an arrangement unacceptable. Another is to prevent all dealings with the book debts other than their collection, and to require the proceeds when collected to be paid to the chargee in reduction of the chargor's outstanding debt. But this method too is likely to be unacceptable to a company which wishes to carry on its business as normally as possible by maintaining its cash flow and its working capital. A third is to prevent all dealings with the debts other than their collection, and to require the collected proceeds to be paid into an account with the chargee bank. That account must then be blocked so as to preserve the proceeds for the benefit of the chargee's security. A fourth is to prevent all dealings with the debts other than their collection and to require the collected proceeds to be paid into a separate account with a third party bank. The chargee then takes a fixed charge over that account so as to preserve the sums paid into it for the benefit of its security.
762:
decision in that case has remained unchallenged for so many years. But the fact is that it was a decision that was taken at first instance, and it has now been conclusively demonstrated that the construction which he placed on the debenture was wrong. This is not one of those cases where there are respectable arguments either way. With regret, the conclusion has to be that it is not possible to defend the decision on any rational basis. It is not enough to say that it has stood for more than 25 years. The fact is that, like any other first instance decision, it was always open to correction if the country's highest appellate court was persuaded that there was something wrong with it. Those who relied upon it must be taken to have been aware of this. It provided guidance, and no criticism can reasonably be levelled at those who felt that it was proper to rely on it. But it was no more immune from review by the ultimate appellate court than any other decision which has been taken at first instance.
758:
commercial life of this country depends to a large extent on the reliability of the security arrangements that are entered into between debtors and their creditors. The law provides the context in which these arrangements are entered into, and it lays down the rules that have to be applied when the arrangements break down. Mistakes as to the law can make all the difference between success and failure when the creditor seeks to realise his security. So a heavy responsibility lies on judges to provide the lending market with guidance that is accurate and reliable. This is so that mistakes can be avoided and transactions entered into with confidence that they will achieve what is expected of them.
643:. Also relevant, but not determinative were the extent of the restrictions imposed by the debenture, the rights retained by Spectrum to deal with its debtors and collect the money owed by them, Spectrum's right to draw on its account with the bank into which the collected debts had to be paid, provided it kept within the overdraft limit, the description "fixed charge" attributed to the charge by the parties themselves. Even though the money was put into a separate account, that was the case here. The decision of
702:
question is whether the restrictions that it imposed went far enough. There is no doubt that their effect was to prevent the company from entering into transactions with any third party in relation to the book debts prior to their collection. The uncollected book debts were to be held exclusively for the benefit of the bank. But everything then depended on the nature of the account with the bank into which the proceeds were to paid under the arrangement described in clause 5 of the debenture. As
677:
security agreement ensures that the charge over the book debts is fixed. It is not easy to reconcile the company's need to continue to collect and use these sums for its own business purposes with the lender's wish to escape from the priority which section 175(2)(b) gives to preferential debts over the claims of the holder of a floating charge by subjecting the uncollected book debts to a security which will operate as a fixed charge over them.
22:
130:
785:
the chargor is left free to use the charged asset and to remove it from the security. On this point I am in respectful agreement with Lord
Millett. Moreover, recognition that this is the essential characteristic of a floating charge reflects the mischief that the statutory intervention to which I have referred was intended to meet and should ensure that preferential creditors continue to enjoy the priority that section 175 of the
749:
understanding that this was its meaning and effect. Banks had relied upon this understanding, and individuals had guaranteed the liabilities of companies to banks on the understanding that the banks would be entitled to look first to their charges on book debts unaffected by the claims of preferred creditors. The respondents say that this is the course that ought now to be followed in the interests of commercial certainty.
779:
from the security. In all these cases, and in any other case in which the chargor remains free to remove the charged assets from the security, the charge should, in principle, be categorised as a floating charge. The assets would have the circulating, ambulatory character distinctive of a floating charge.
784:
111. In my opinion, the essential characteristic of a floating charge, the characteristic that distinguishes it from a fixed charge, is that the asset subject to the charge is not finally appropriated as a security for the payment of the debt until the occurrence of some future event. In the meantime
714:
56. I do not see how this question can be answered without examining the contractual relationship in regard to that account between the bank and its customer. An account from which the customer is entitled to withdraw funds whenever it wishes within the agreed limits of any overdraft is not a blocked
342:
It was apparent that if the House of Lords decided in favour of the Inland
Revenue, the expectations of a significant number of banks, who had relied on being able to have "fixed charges" and thus absolute priority in insolvency, would be defeated. Many people had assumed, or at least argued they had
778:
1 AC 336, 357, para 63. Nor, in principle, can there be any difference in categorisation between those grants and the grant of a charge over the specified assets expressed to be a fixed charge but where the chargor is permitted until the occurrence of the specified event to remove the charged assets
725:
BCLC 242 to characterise the charge on book debts as a fixed charge was that their proceeds were to be segregated in a blocked account where they would be frozen and unusable by the company without the bank's written consent. I respectfully agree. Elsewhere in his judgment he appears to have assumed
697:
has pointed out, a limited number of ways to ensure that a charge over book debts is fixed: An 'Unsatisfactory Area of the Law' - Fixed and
Floating Charges Yet Again, (2004) 1 International Corporate Rescue, 175, 182. One is to prevent all dealings with the book debts so that they are preserved for
689:
has described the facts of the case and summarised all the relevant authorities. I adopt with gratitude all that he has said about them, and I agree with him that the charge which the company granted by way of what the debenture described as a specific charge over its book debts and other debts then
676:
52. ...it is competent for anyone to whom book debts may accrue in the future to create for good consideration an equitable charge upon those book debts which will attach to them as soon as they come into existence. But if this is to be effective as a fixed security everything depends on the way the
757:
1 WLR 1234. It promotes the degree of certainty that is needed for the guidance of those who must regulate their affairs according to the law. It is hard to think of an area of the law where the need for certainty is more important than that with which your
Lordships are concerned in this case. The
761:
64. These are powerful considerations, but I am in no doubt that the proper course is for the Siebe Gorman decision to be overruled. It is a tribute to the great respect which Slade LJ's outstandingly careful judgments, both at first instance and the Court of Appeal, have always commanded that his
710:
BCLC 242, 247, one must look, not at the declared intention of the parties alone, but to the effect of the instruments whereby they purported to carry out that intention. Was the account one which allowed the company to continue to use the proceeds of the book debts as a source of its cash flow or
701:
55. The method that was selected in this case comes closest to the third of these. It was selected, no doubt, because it enabled the company to continue to trade as normally as possible while restricting it, at the same time, to some degree as to what it could do with the book debts. The critical
815:
But, even in respect of statute law, they do not lead to the conclusion that prospective overruling can never be justified as a proper exercise of judicial power. In this country the established practice of judicial precedent derives from the common law. Constitutionally the judges have power to
322:
and other debts… now and from time to time due or owing to " to secure a £250,000 overdraft. Spectrum was prohibited from charging or assigning debts, and was required to pay the proceeds of collection into a NatWest account. But there were no restrictions on
Spectrum’s operation of the account.
842:
that had been distributed in compliance with the understandings of the old law so in many senses, the ruling took prospective effect only with respect to the largest preferred creditor. The drafting of security documents has also been modified by the legal profession, and debentures now usually
748:
2 Lloyd's Rep 142 had appeared to him to be erroneous, he would have been inclined to hold that the form of the debenture had, by custom and usage, acquired the meaning and effect that he had attributed to it: Ch 337, 383, para 97. This was because the form had been used for 25 years under the
690:
and from time to time owing to the company was in law a floating charge. It was not a fixed charge, so section 175(2)(b) applies to it. The preferential creditors have priority over the bank's claims under the debenture to the sums realisable from the book debts and other debts of the company.
802:
said that judges had been described as "developing" the law for some time when making novel decisions, and that a judge is not free to repeal laws or distance themselves from bad laws; their only power is to impose a new interpretation. He also noted the new "dynamic" power to interpret
730:
case 2 Lloyd's Rep 142 was also a blocked account: p 727, para 38; p 730, para 48. In para 38 he said that the company could collect the money but was not free to use it as it saw fit. The question whether he was right when he made that assumption is at the heart of this case.
830:. However, given the strength and number of the court, and that the court specifically invited the Attorney General to appoint leading counsel to address them on that point, it seems clear that the decision on that point will be treated as binding precedent.
301:. However, the House of Lords also discussed the power of the court to make rulings as to the law that were "prospective only" to mitigate potential harshness when issuing a ruling that was different from what the law had previously been understood to be.
671:
it was wrong and was overruled. Recognising freedom to deal with assets as the hallmark of a floating charge was necessary to give effect to the purpose of the legislation on floating charges, and the statutory system of priority.
323:
Spectrum’s account was always overdrawn but it used the proceeds of the debts as and when it was necessary. When
Spectrum went into liquidation, NatWest argued that the charge was a fixed charge over book debts and proceeds. The
309:
Spectrum Plus Ltd ("Spectrum") carried on the business of a manufacturer of dyes, paints, pigments and other chemical products for the paint industry. Spectrum opened an overdraft facility, and made an agreement with,
752:
63. The House's
Practice Statement of 26 July 1966 reminds us that the use of precedent is an indispensable foundation on which to decide what is the law and how it should be applied in individual cases:
985:
820:
He held that in exceptional cases, it would be open to the court to hold that a new interpretation of the law should be applied only prospectively. However, on the facts of the case before him,
635:
The House of Lords, with seven members given the constitutional issue of retrospective rulings, held that the charge over
Spectrum Plus Ltd's book debts was floating, because the hallmark of a
824:
felt that it was "miles away from the exceptional category in which alone prospective overruling would be legitimate" (para 43) and so relegated his comments upon prospective only rulings to
403:
and where a chargor is prohibited from disposing of receivables before they are collected and must pay them into a chargee’s account, the charge must be construed as fixed. He said
407:
was correctly decided given that the debenture there clearly restricted the company’s ability to draw on the bank account into which the proceeds of the book debts were paid. The
349:
was that if book debts were paid into a separate account, then a charge over them would be deemed to be fixed. Accordingly, it was submitted that if the Lords were to overrule
385:, that because the charge allowed Spectrum to use the proceeds of the debts in the normal course of business it must have been a floating charge (therefore not following
465:
1011:
999:
711:
was it one which, on the contrary, preserved the proceeds intact for the benefit of the bank's security? Was it, putting the point shortly, a blocked account?
505:
396:
737:
553:
1234:
448:
215:
970:
799:
191:
517:
387:
345:
207:
1219:
891:
1224:
1204:
286:
140:
86:
1186:
920:
754:
717:
370:
58:
1113:, where the US Supreme Court decided its decision was effective for the 2000 Republican victory, but not necessarily otherwise.
854:
had expressed that view that "We cannot, without yet further innovation, change the law prospectively only". More recently, in
851:
211:
686:
203:
39:
65:
859:
664:
392:
958:
821:
441:
199:
843:
contain provisions stating that the proceeds of book debts may not be assigned and must be paid into a blocked account.
1214:
1178:
72:
1229:
1089:
105:
652:
932:
884:
838:
In relation to the substantive issues, the
Revenue had already indicated that it would not seek to reopen recent
479:
54:
434:
43:
1209:
1170:
311:
176:
640:
366:
362:
721:
2 AC 710, 722, para 22 Lord
Millett said that the critical feature which led the Irish Supreme Court in
1023:
877:
565:
375:
726:
that the account into which the proceeds of the book debts were to be paid under the debenture in the
944:
541:
491:
381:
1081:
195:
79:
771:
32:
703:
808:
846:
Prior to the decision, "prospective only" rulings were not favoured under English law. In
8:
786:
611:
598:
332:
908:
298:
294:
411:
form of debenture had been followed for 25 years, and therefore had acquired meaning.
1053:
741:
694:
644:
625:
529:
1043:
1028:
585:
570:
278:
975:
621:
160:
862:
had said the system of prospective overruling "has no place in our legal system".
1076:
636:
412:
336:
328:
290:
255:
1069:
1057:
324:
282:
1198:
1102:
826:
426:
1109:
315:
839:
416:
869:
651:
had been subject to serious academic criticism, and had been doubted by
1096:
319:
21:
129:
804:
353:, they should only do so prospectively, and not retrospectively.
151:
National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others
327:, which was a major creditor, argued the debenture was merely a
331:, so its claim for tax owed took priority over the bank under
289:
that settled a number of outstanding legal issues relating to
766:
Lord Scott gave a concurring opinion and said the following.
335:
section 175. At stake was merely £16,136, but the case was a
318:, or in the words of the contract, a "specific charge all
639:
is that the business is free to deal with the assets in
789:
and its statutory predecessors intended them to have.
376:
Agnew v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Re Brumark)
46:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
1196:
681:Did Spectrum's debenture create a fixed charge?
885:
746:Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
456:
442:
388:Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
346:Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
987:British Eagle Ltd v Cie Nationale Air France
467:Re Panama, NZ & Australian Royal Mail Co
856:Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council
892:
878:
449:
435:
128:
899:
649:Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank
106:Learn how and when to remove this message
946:Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd
798:Regarding the prospective ruling issue,
493:Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd
314:("NatWest") that said it was granting a
921:British India Steam Navigation Co v IRC
755:Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)
718:Agnew v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
1235:United Kingdom constitutional case law
1197:
793:
873:
518:Siebe Gorman & Co v Barclays Bank
430:
1000:Aluminium BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
744:'s construction of the debenture in
506:Aluminium BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
44:adding citations to reliable sources
15:
959:National Provincial Bank v Charnley
738:Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR
13:
1220:United Kingdom insolvency case law
971:Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Ltd
14:
1246:
1179:Fixed and floating charges after
1164:
685:53. My noble and learned friend,
663:was followed and extended by the
612:[2011] EWHC 1948 (Ch)
599:[2007] EWHC 1443 (Ch)
422:
216:Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
933:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
776:In re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd
595:Russell Cooke Trust Co v Elliott
480:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
20:
1225:2005 in United Kingdom case law
1205:United Kingdom company case law
833:
554:Royal Trust Bank v NatWest Bank
31:needs additional citations for
1151:
1142:
1133:
1124:
770:107. Indeed if a security has
1:
365:held, applying the ruling of
312:National Westminster Bank Plc
693:54. There are, as Professor
208:Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
7:
865:
811:. He then went on to rule:
356:
343:assumed that the law since
192:Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
10:
1251:
1024:Re Brumark Investments Ltd
566:Re Brumark Investments Ltd
399:held that he was bound by
1215:English property case law
1050:
1035:
1020:
1008:
996:
982:
967:
955:
941:
929:
917:
905:
669:Re New Bullas Trading Ltd
618:
605:
592:
577:
562:
550:
542:Re New Bullas Trading Ltd
538:
526:
514:
502:
488:
476:
462:
457:Cases on floating charges
382:Re New Bullas Trading Ltd
251:
246:
226:
221:
212:Baroness Hale of Richmond
187:
182:
172:
156:
146:
136:
127:
122:
1230:NatWest Group litigation
1172:Nat West Bank v Spectrum
1117:
1082:Voidable floating charge
379:and declining to follow
304:
807:under section 3 of the
665:English Court of Appeal
361:In the High Court, the
1044:[2005] UKHL 41
1029:[2001] UKPC 28
860:Lord Goff of Chieveley
818:
791:
764:
586:[2005] UKHL 41
571:[2001] UKPC 28
279:[2005] UKHL 41
263:prospective overruling
200:Lord Hope of Craighead
55:"Re Spectrum Plus Ltd"
976:[1968] UKHL 4
900:Cases on secured debt
816:modify this practice.
813:
809:Human Rights Act 1998
768:
723:In re Keenan Bros Ltd
708:In re Keenan Bros Ltd
687:Lord Scott of Foscote
674:
204:Lord Scott of Foscote
177:Full text of judgment
1210:House of Lords cases
1039:Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
848:Launchbury v Morgans
608:Re Rayford Homes Ltd
581:Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
274:Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
123:Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
40:improve this article
858:2 AC 349 (at 379),
794:Prospective rulings
740:said that, even if
471:(1870) 5 Ch App 318
333:Insolvency Act 1986
1174:- full case report
1090:constitutional law
909:Holroyd v Marshall
299:English common law
295:recharacterisation
260:recharacterisation
1187:Ramifications of
1139:2 Lloyd's Rep 142
1130:2 Lloyd’s Rep 142
1064:
1063:
1054:Security interest
1012:Re BCCI SA (No 8)
912:(1862) 10 HLC 191
850:AC 127 (at 137),
695:Sarah Worthington
657:Re Brightlife Ltd
641:business as usual
632:
631:
626:UK insolvency law
530:Re Brightlife Ltd
521:2 Lloyd’s Rep 142
270:
269:
116:
115:
108:
90:
1242:
1158:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1131:
1128:
988:
947:
924:(1881) 7 QBD 165
894:
887:
880:
871:
870:
852:Lord Wilberforce
622:Floating charges
494:
468:
451:
444:
437:
428:
427:
397:Lord Phillips MR
391:either). In the
291:floating charges
183:Court membership
132:
120:
119:
111:
104:
100:
97:
91:
89:
48:
24:
16:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1195:
1194:
1167:
1162:
1161:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1077:Floating charge
1065:
1060:
1046:
1031:
1016:
1004:
992:
986:
978:
963:
951:
945:
937:
925:
913:
901:
898:
868:
836:
796:
637:floating charge
633:
628:
614:
601:
588:
573:
558:
546:
534:
522:
510:
498:
492:
484:
472:
466:
458:
455:
425:
413:Jonathan Parker
393:Court of Appeal
363:Vice Chancellor
359:
329:floating charge
307:
297:risk under the
266:
256:floating charge
242:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
167:
165:
163:
112:
101:
95:
92:
49:
47:
37:
25:
12:
11:
5:
1248:
1238:
1237:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1193:
1192:
1184:
1176:
1166:
1165:External links
1163:
1160:
1159:
1150:
1141:
1132:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1106:
1099:
1093:
1092:
1085:
1084:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1062:
1061:
1058:UK company law
1051:
1048:
1047:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1009:
1006:
1005:
997:
994:
993:
983:
980:
979:
968:
965:
964:
956:
953:
952:
942:
939:
938:
930:
927:
926:
918:
915:
914:
906:
903:
902:
897:
896:
889:
882:
874:
867:
864:
835:
832:
795:
792:
630:
629:
619:
616:
615:
606:
603:
602:
593:
590:
589:
578:
575:
574:
563:
560:
559:
551:
548:
547:
539:
536:
535:
527:
524:
523:
515:
512:
511:
503:
500:
499:
489:
486:
485:
477:
474:
473:
463:
460:
459:
454:
453:
446:
439:
431:
424:
423:House of Lords
421:
358:
355:
325:Inland Revenue
306:
303:
287:House of Lords
283:UK company law
268:
267:
265:
264:
261:
258:
252:
249:
248:
244:
243:
241:
240:
237:
234:
231:
227:
224:
223:
219:
218:
189:
188:Judges sitting
185:
184:
180:
179:
174:
170:
169:
158:
154:
153:
148:
147:Full case name
144:
143:
141:House of Lords
138:
134:
133:
125:
124:
114:
113:
28:
26:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1247:
1236:
1233:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1202:
1200:
1191:
1190:
1185:
1183:
1182:
1177:
1175:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1154:
1145:
1136:
1127:
1123:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1105:
1104:
1103:Stare decisis
1100:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1059:
1055:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1019:
1014:
1013:
1007:
1002:
1001:
995:
990:
989:
981:
977:
973:
972:
966:
961:
960:
954:
949:
948:
940:
935:
934:
928:
923:
922:
916:
911:
910:
904:
895:
890:
888:
883:
881:
876:
875:
872:
863:
861:
857:
853:
849:
844:
841:
831:
829:
828:
827:obiter dictum
823:
817:
812:
810:
806:
801:
800:Lord Nicholls
790:
788:
782:
780:
777:
773:
767:
763:
759:
756:
750:
747:
743:
739:
734:
732:
729:
724:
720:
719:
712:
709:
705:
699:
696:
691:
688:
683:
682:
678:
673:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
627:
623:
617:
613:
609:
604:
600:
596:
591:
587:
583:
582:
576:
572:
568:
567:
561:
556:
555:
549:
544:
543:
537:
532:
531:
525:
520:
519:
513:
508:
507:
501:
496:
495:
487:
482:
481:
475:
470:
469:
461:
452:
447:
445:
440:
438:
433:
432:
429:
420:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:
384:
383:
378:
377:
372:
371:Privy Council
368:
364:
354:
352:
348:
347:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
317:
313:
302:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:
262:
259:
257:
254:
253:
250:
245:
238:
235:
232:
230:Lord Nicholls
229:
228:
225:
222:Case opinions
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
186:
181:
178:
175:
171:
162:
159:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
139:
135:
131:
126:
121:
118:
110:
107:
99:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71:
67:
64:
60:
57: –
56:
52:
51:Find sources:
45:
41:
35:
34:
29:This article
27:
23:
18:
17:
1188:
1180:
1171:
1153:
1144:
1135:
1126:
1110:Bush v. Gore
1108:
1101:
1038:
1037:
1022:
1010:
998:
984:
969:
957:
943:
931:
919:
907:
855:
847:
845:
840:liquidations
837:
834:Significance
825:
819:
814:
797:
783:
781:
775:
769:
765:
760:
751:
745:
735:
733:
728:Siebe Gorman
727:
722:
716:
715:account. In
713:
707:
700:
692:
684:
680:
679:
675:
668:
661:Siebe Gorman
660:
656:
648:
634:
607:
594:
580:
579:
564:
552:
540:
528:
516:
504:
490:
478:
464:
409:Siebe Gorman
408:
405:Siebe Gorman
404:
400:
386:
380:
374:
373:decision of
367:Lord Millett
360:
351:Siebe Gorman
350:
344:
341:
316:fixed charge
308:
285:decision of
273:
272:
271:
150:
117:
102:
93:
83:
76:
69:
62:
50:
38:Please help
33:verification
30:
1070:company law
659:. Although
419:concurred.
239:Lord Walker
1199:Categories
1157:1 BCLC 485
704:McCarthy J
653:Hoffmann J
545:1 BCLC 485
320:book debts
236:Lord Scott
196:Lord Steyn
173:Transcript
96:April 2020
66:newspapers
1097:Precedent
1003:1 WLR 676
991:1 WLR 758
822:Lord Hope
509:1 WLR 676
337:test case
233:Lord Hope
157:Citations
1189:Spectrum
1181:Spectrum
962:1 KB 431
950:2 Ch 284
866:See also
805:statutes
787:1986 Act
772:Romer LJ
706:said in
533:1 Ch 200
497:2 Ch 284
417:Jacob LJ
357:Judgment
247:Keywords
166:3 WLR 58
164:2 AC 680
742:Slade J
645:Slade J
557:BCC 316
415:LJ and
369:in the
168:BCC 694
161:UKHL 41
80:scholar
1148:Ch 200
1015:AC 214
401:Bullas
281:was a
82:
75:
68:
61:
53:
1118:Notes
1042:
1027:
974:
936:AC 22
610:
597:
584:
569:
483:AC 22
305:Facts
277:
137:Court
87:JSTOR
73:books
1052:see
736:62.
620:see
293:and
59:news
1088:On
1068:On
1056:in
667:in
655:in
647:in
624:in
42:by
1201::
395:,
339:.
893:e
886:t
879:v
450:e
443:t
436:v
109:)
103:(
98:)
94:(
84:·
77:·
70:·
63:·
36:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
