Knowledge

Re Bond Worth Ltd

Source 📝

28: 141:
The joint receivers issued summons for determination claiming that (1) although the clause referred to "equitable and beneficial ownership" it did not have the effect of creating a bare trust for the benefit of the sellers, but rather it created a
177:
held the clause, which referred to "equitable and beneficial ownership", did not create a bare trust for Monsanto's benefit, but did create a floating equitable charge. This followed from
274: 134:" clause. Bond Worth Ltd went into receivership when a large sum of money was owing to Monsanto Ltd under various contracts containing the "title" clause. Monsanto Ltd notified the 195:
1 WLR 676 was distinguished. Because the floating charge was created by the buyer company and therefore registrable, it was void for non-registration.
191: 179: 336: 260: 219: 385: 146:
in favour of the sellers; and (2) such a floating charge created by the buyer company would therefore be registerable, and so was
236: 212: 298: 205: 185: 159: 94: 38: 324: 8: 138:
of their claim. The receivers contested whether the retention of title clause was valid.
131: 115: 89: 352: 348: 174: 163: 111: 69: 286: 302: 126:
Bond Worth Ltd was a carpet manufacturing company. It bought man-made fibres from
143: 312: 379: 158:
The trial lasted a total of 15 days. Notable counsel who appeared included
27: 135: 197: 147: 84: 130:
Ltd and used them to make carpets. The conditions of sale included a "
127: 192:Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium 377: 262:Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd 213: 150:if not registered (as was in fact the case). 227: 220: 206: 26: 378: 201: 237:Aluminium BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd 13: 386:United Kingdom insolvency case law 14: 397: 275:Indian Oil v Greenstone Shipping 1: 367: 299:Barclays Ltd v Quistclose Ltd 7: 169: 10: 402: 345: 333: 321: 309: 295: 283: 271: 257: 245: 233: 186:Illingworth v Houldsworth 144:floating equitable charge 80: 75: 65: 60: 52: 44: 34: 25: 20: 362: 153: 121: 228:Cases on quasi-security 189:2 Ch 284 was applied. 183:(1887) 35 ChD 373 and 325:Re Curtain Dream plc 160:Jeremiah Harman QC 132:retention of title 116:retention of title 95:retention of title 90:Recharacterisation 359: 358: 353:UK insolvency law 349:Security interest 249:Re Bond Worth Ltd 164:Elizabeth Gloster 114:case, concerning 112:UK insolvency law 107:Re Bond Worth Ltd 103: 102: 21:Re Bond Worth Ltd 393: 287:Re Peachdart Ltd 263: 222: 215: 208: 199: 198: 180:Coburn v Collins 61:Court membership 48:12 February 1979 30: 18: 17: 401: 400: 396: 395: 394: 392: 391: 390: 376: 375: 370: 365: 360: 355: 341: 329: 317: 305: 291: 279: 267: 261: 253: 241: 229: 226: 172: 156: 124: 99: 12: 11: 5: 399: 389: 388: 374: 373: 369: 366: 364: 361: 357: 356: 346: 343: 342: 334: 331: 330: 322: 319: 318: 313:Re Kayford Ltd 310: 307: 306: 296: 293: 292: 284: 281: 280: 272: 269: 268: 258: 255: 254: 246: 243: 242: 234: 231: 230: 225: 224: 217: 210: 202: 171: 168: 155: 152: 123: 120: 101: 100: 98: 97: 92: 87: 81: 78: 77: 73: 72: 67: 63: 62: 58: 57: 54: 50: 49: 46: 42: 41: 36: 32: 31: 23: 22: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 398: 387: 384: 383: 381: 372: 371: 354: 350: 344: 339: 338: 337:WDA v Exfinco 332: 327: 326: 320: 315: 314: 308: 304: 301: 300: 294: 289: 288: 282: 277: 276: 270: 265: 264: 256: 251: 250: 244: 239: 238: 232: 223: 218: 216: 211: 209: 204: 203: 200: 196: 194: 193: 188: 187: 182: 181: 176: 167: 165: 161: 151: 149: 145: 139: 137: 133: 129: 119: 117: 113: 109: 108: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 82: 79: 74: 71: 68: 66:Judge sitting 64: 59: 55: 51: 47: 43: 40: 37: 33: 29: 24: 19: 16: 335: 323: 311: 297: 285: 273: 259: 248: 247: 235: 190: 184: 178: 173: 157: 140: 125: 110:Ch 228 is a 106: 105: 104: 15: 368:References 85:Insolvency 39:High Court 316:1 WLR 279 278:3 WLR 869 240:1 WLR 676 136:receivers 118:clauses. 380:Category 340:BCLC 148 328:BCLC 925 170:Judgment 128:Monsanto 76:Keywords 53:Citation 175:Slade J 70:Slade J 45:Decided 303:UKHL 4 290:Ch 131 252:Ch 228 56:Ch 228 363:Notes 266:Ch 25 154:Trial 122:Facts 35:Court 351:and 347:see 162:and 148:void 382:: 166:. 221:e 214:t 207:v

Index


High Court
Slade J
Insolvency
Recharacterisation
retention of title
UK insolvency law
retention of title
Monsanto
retention of title
receivers
floating equitable charge
void
Jeremiah Harman QC
Elizabeth Gloster
Slade J
Coburn v Collins
Illingworth v Houldsworth
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium
v
t
e
Aluminium BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
Re Bond Worth Ltd
Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd
Indian Oil v Greenstone Shipping
Re Peachdart Ltd
Barclays Ltd v Quistclose Ltd
UKHL 4
Re Kayford Ltd

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.