Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Even if a court was persuaded to buy one of these rather dubious defences I would have thought that any practitioner stupid enough to have relied on re New Bullas ought to be liable for losses caused by the breach of his statutory duty to distribute properly: Pulsford v. Devenish [1903] 2 Ch 625.

Robert Stevens

On 5 June 2001 an extremely strong Privy Council, in an appeal from New Zealand, revisited the law on the proper characterisation of charges over a company's book debts (and when they are can properly said to be fixed, or merely floating): Agnew v IRC, just reported in [2001] 3 WLR 454.

Leaving to one side the fascinating commercial implications of Lord Millett's advice, the restitutionary question is this.

Suppose an insolvency practitioner, believing a bank's charge over receivables to be a fixed, rather than a floating charge (on the basis of the now discredited New Bullas Trading case [1994] 1 BCLC 485), pays the bank £1 million, when he should have been paying the preferential creditors (some govt debts and employees) first (under UK Insolvency Act 1986, s 40).

It seems to me that the prima facie claim based on Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council/mistake of law is unanswerable. Any doubts about this? It seems defences would have to do the work. The bank would struggle to show change of position, I think. Are 'good faith purchase/debt validly discharged' and 'submission to an honest claim' (the scope of both of which defences is a matter for debate) robust enough to preclude such claims?

The question is currently preoccupying accountants, insolvency practitioners and banks up and down the UK.

The issues may seem recondite to those from jurisdictions which have reformed personal property security law along US lines.

---------------------
Gerard McMeel