Notes on Security Over Personal Property Free Essays

Schedule X: SECURITY OVER PERSONAL PROPERTY Table of Contents 1. introduction4 1. 1The structure of security4 1. We will compose a custom paper test on Notes on Security Over Personal Property or then again any comparable theme just for you Request Now 2Reasons for taking security4 Saloman v A Saloman Co [1897] AC 22, per Lord Macnaghten4 Re Lind [1915] 2 Ch 3454 1. 3What occurs during bankruptcy? 5 1. 3. 1Cases on PP Rule AD Rule6 Re Jeavons, ex p Mackay (1873) LR 8 Ch App 6436 *British Eagle v Cie Nationale Air France [1975] HL6 International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd [2008] HCA 37 Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 387 2. Structure versus Substance *8 . 1Artificial transactions8 Re George Inglefield Ltd [1933] Ch 18 Re Curtain Dream Plc [1990] BCC 3419 Welsh Development Agency v Exfinco [1990] BCC 3939 Thai Chee Ken v Banque Paribas [1993] SGCA10 2. 2American lawful authenticity and Article 910 3. Home loans and Charges10 3. 1Mortgages over close to home property10 Pacrim Investments Pte Ltd v Tan Mui Keow [2005] 1 SLR(R) 14110 3. 2Clogs on the value of redemption11 3. 2. 1Length of mtgage11 Knightsbridge Estates Ltd v Byrne [1939] Ch 441 (ECA)11 Fisc al Consultants Pte Ltd v Asia Commercial Finance Ltd (1981)11 3. 2. 2Collateral advantages11 Samuel v Jarrah Timber12 *Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat (HL)12 * Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd v Wee Ah Kee [’97 SGCA]12 3. 3Identifying a charge13 3. 3. 1Charge versus Mtgage13 **Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank [1982] AC 58413 3. 3. 2Right to take ownership =/= charge14 *Re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd [1998] Ch 49514 3. 3. 3Charge must contain positive undertaking14 Flightline Ltd v Edwards [2003] CA14 3. 3. 4Direction to pay out of store =/= charge14 *Palmer v Carey [1926] AC 703 (PC from Aus)14 3. 3. 5Equitable set-off versus charge15 3. 4Capturing future assets15 *Tailby v Official Receiver (1888) 13 App Cas 523 Lord Macnaughten16 3. 5Charge-backs16 3. 6Trust Receipts distinguished16 3. 6. 1How it works16 3. 6. 2Deemed proceeding pledge16 3. 6. 3Deemed trust? 17 *United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd v Lim Kang Seng [1994] SGHC17 3. 6. 4How is continues shared btw Bank and B? 17 4. Fixed and Floating Charges18 4. 1Definition of a drifting charge18 Illingworth v Houldsworth [1904] HL (Lord Macnaghten)18 *Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd [1904]:18 *Dresdner Bank v Ho Mun-Tuke [’92, SGCA]19 4. 2â€Å"Dealing in the conventional course of business† (OCOB)19 Re Borax [1901] 1 Ch 32719 Ashborder BV v Green Gas Power Ltd [2004] EWHC 151719 4. 3Crystallisation of coasting charges19 Re Brightlife [1987] Ch 20020 Re Woodroffes (Musical Instruments) Ltd [1986] Ch 36620 4. 3. 1Apparent agency20 4. 3. 2S 226(1A): a sparkle to the programmed/self-loader battle20 4. 4Distinguishing fixed and gliding charges20 4. 5The indebtedness battleground21 *Agnew v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2001] 2 AC 71021 *Re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] 2 AC 68021 4. 5. 1Expenses of liquidator21 Buchler v Talbot [2004] AC 298 (HL)21 5. Semi Security: Title-based Devices22 5. Reservation of title (‘Romalpa clauses’)22 Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 22822 *Aluminiuim Industrie Vassen BV v Romalpa Aluminum Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 67622 5. 1. 1New merchandise clauses23 Clough Mill Ltd v Martin [1985] 1 WLR 11123 *Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Forest Timber Products Ltd [1981] Ch 2523 Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 22823 5. 1. 2Money continues clauses23 *E Pfeiffer Weinkellerei Weinenkauf GmbH v Arbuthnot Factors Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 15023 Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v CAN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 2524 5. 2Hire purchase24 5. 3Discounting receivables24 6. enrollment of charges25 6. Registrable charges25 6. 1. 1S 131 registration25 6. 1. 2When is a charge made? 26 6. 2Effect of enlistment and non-registration26 6. 2. 1No productive knowledge26 Re Monolithic Co [1915] 1 Ch 64326 6. 2. 2Conclusive evidence26 6. 3Late Registration26 7. Need Rules27 7. 1Rules in general27 Joseph v Lyons (1884)27 Cheah v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd [1992] 1 AC 47227 7. 2Constructive notice27 Wilson v Kelland [1910] 2 Ch 30627 *Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc (No 3) [1995] 1 WLR 978, 999-100528 7. 3Purchase cash (security) interests28 7. 4Tacking future advances29 West v Williams [1899]29 7. 5Circularity30 8. Remedies30 8. 1General30 8. 1. 1What cures does Chgee have? 30 8. 1. 2How much notification must loan boss give? 30 8. 1. 3Duty of care in picking receiver30 Gaskell v Gosling [1896] (Rigby LJ)30 8. 2Receivership31 Re Newdigate Colliery [1912]31 Airlines Airspares v Handley Page [1970] 1 Ch 19331 Medforth v. Blake [1999] 2 BCLC 221; [1999] 3 All ER 97 (CA)31 8. 3Judicial management31 8. 3. 1What occurs in the JM procedure? 32 Bristol Airport Plc v Powdrill [1990] Ch 74432 Electro Magnetic (S) Co v Development Bank of Singapore Ltd [1994] 1 SLR(R) 57432 . 3. 2Disposal forces of JM32 9. Indebtedness clawback33 9. 1Unfair preferences33 Re M C Bacon Ltd [1990] BCC 7833 9. 2Undervalue transactions33 Hill v Spread Trustee Co Ltd [2006] BCC 64634 9. 3Floating charges close insolvency34 Power v Sharp Investments [1993] BCC 60934 Re Yeovil Glove Company [1965] 1 Ch 14834 10. Change? 34 Focus obviously: * Non-possessory security: esp Mtgages and Ch arges * Title-based security| presentation The structure of security (see mindmap) Reasons for taking security * Main explanation: need over other unbound leasers (U/Cs) * During indebtedness * Obvious bit of leeway * Also, a self improvement cure * Outside bankruptcy * Borrower (B) has increasingly motivation to reimburse * as it were, Secured Creditor (SC) is above all else; however note that Parliament has interceded with a class of â€Å"Preferential Creditors† (P/C) Saloman v A Saloman Co [1897] AC 22, per Lord Macnaghten * Salomon ran an organization to such an extent that there were a few U/Cs yet Salomon himself was the main S/C * HELD: Salomon’s security was legitimate, even it was completely shocking that the made sure about loan boss could clear aside all cases of the company’s different leasers. Case shows that loan boss and borrower totally allowed to contract in any capacity they need. * Only exemption is on the off chance that they force stops up on the value of reclamation. * (Note: After this, Parliament made an uncommon class of P/Cs) Re Lind [1915] 2 Ch 345| Facts| * Case concerned rudimentary security †pres ent security over future resources * Son allowed loan bosses security over the reversionary enthusiasm for his mother’s domain (which just emerges after mum’s passing) * Son became bankrupt †Mother bites the dust †Son released from chapter 11 | HELD| Security connects from the date of the security game plan (ie. hen S previously gave the security)| Reasoning| * When prop appears (ie. at the point when mother passed on) it is caught by the security, however dated right back to when S initially gave security. * This is so despite the fact that prop fall in after insolvency! Prop is out of the hands of the trustee in chapter 11. * S/Cs had need over other unbound loan bosses. * Goode utilizes relationship of new brought into the world having the option to sue for wounds supported during birth. | Bankruptcy Act ss 76, 78 Companies Act s 269 Assets under security don't vest in vendor/OA (s 76(3) BA) * If an organization has ALL advantages are secured by security, the outlet is feeble and needs to sit by the sidelines until the made sure about lender, normally representing a recipient, does the way toward dealing with the organization and managing the benefits in order to augment resources for be taken care of. What occurs during indebtedness? * You can't exactly acknowledge security until you recognize what befalls property in the bankruptcy procedure: 1. Pertinent event† happens †eg. goals to wrap up/appeal to court is passed 2. Trustee in chapter 11/outlet designated 3. No one (no official of the organization or individual) may discard the benefits without the assent of the trustee or vendor * Prior to indebtedness, regardless of whether individual is going to be bankrupt, resources are at free removal of Co/individual. * But 2 special cases: (I) Insolvency clawback * certain pre-bankruptcy dealings can be turned around. (ii) Anti-hardship rule (AD Rule) * precedent-based law rule of open approach (begins in com-law; not found i n indebtedness enactment) * If an instrument looks to move prop out or just produce results upon an individual’s insolvency, it is commonly void. (see Syl 3) * One disparaged qualification: * the award for a constrained period which lapses upon bankruptcy = substantial * the relinquishment of a full enthusiasm upon indebtedness = invalid * Hard to perceive any reason why they are dealt with diff when impact is same. * Anti-hardship rule not equivalent to pari pasu rule (PP Rule) (as held in Belmont Park) * The pari pasu rule of conveyance is expressed in s. 00 of the organizations demonstration expresses that subject to the case of the particular loan bosses, the benefits of the bankrupt individual are to be conveyed in the pari pasu or rateable. This is an enactment that can't be shaped by the court. Cases on PP Rule AD Rule Re Jeavons, ex p Mackay (1873) LR 8 Ch App 643 * Facts: * J sold one B a patent for improving reinforcement plates fabricate. * consequently B would pay J eminences of 15s per ton of plates created. * B likewise loaned J ? 12,500, and concurred that half J’s’ eminences would go to taking care of that credit. It was additionally concurred that if J went ruined, or made a course of action with loan bosses, B could keep all the sovereignties to fulfill the obligation * Held: The second piece of understanding inadequate; Brown had a lien on one portion of the eminences just * Clear-cut break of pari pasu and AD Rule both. *British Eagle v Cie Nationale Air France [1975] HL| Facts| * The case concerned the activity of IATA, a clearing house for carriers. Under the IATA plan, ‘debts’ owed between individuals were not payable, however were gotten off in the clearing framework; just the equalization was payable to or by IATA. Briti