39:
178:
infers that the company will go on, and that the debenture holder could not interfere until either the interest which was due was unpaid, or until the period had arrived for the payment of his principal, and that principal was unpaid. I think the meaning and object of the security was this, that the company might go on during the interval, and, furthermore, that during the interval the debenture holder would not be entitled to an account of
177:
I have no hesitation in saying that in this particular case, and having regard to the state of this particular company, the word "undertaking" had reference to all the property of the company. And I take the object and meaning of the debenture to be this, that the word "undertaking" necessarily
170:(1862) 10 HLC 191 that a mortgage requires that mortgagee must have the power to prevent the mortgagee from removing the property. Here not only could the ships be sailed out of the jurisdiction, the company could also "deal with them as they pleased", including ultimately selling them.
194:", his Lordship went on to say "I do not refer to such things as sale or mortgages of property". However, that notwithstanding, the case continued to be applied and the role of floating charges, having been implicitly recognised expressly enforced, continued to develop and to grow.
256:
296:
555:
210:
first referred to security as being "floating security", and this phrase was contrasted with a fixed charge, until it came to eventually be known as a floating charge.
344:
239:
470:
436:
308:
550:
545:
161:
49:
232:
137:
The reported decision is extremely short, and the judgment itself is only two pages. The word "floating charge" does not appear in it.
446:
480:
496:
270:
202:
Although the case is cited as the genesis of the floating charge in
English law, that phrase is not used in the judgment. In
225:
38:
565:
17:
356:
560:
332:
282:
207:
182:, or of any dealing with the property of the company in the ordinary course of carrying on their business.
150:
90:
186:
The court was clearly at pains to limit its ruling to the individual case. In addition to stressing "in
371:
166:
476:
442:
416:
320:
105:
157:, and whether undertaking included the proceeds of sale of vessels belonging to the company.
412:
131:
110:
402:
389:
153:. The issue centred upon the company's ability to assign all of its "undertaking" to a
146:
539:
179:
376:
361:
127:
217:
472:
Towards
Reforming the Legal Framework for Secured Transactions in Nigeria
154:
145:
The case related to an appeal by a debenture holder against an order of
457:
as being the first case where this result was identified by the courts.
126:(1870) 5 Ch App 318 is generally accepted as the first decision under
60:
In re Panama, New
Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Company, Limited
499:. Bankruptcy, Insolvency & Corporate Rescue. 17 February 2011
221:
497:"Key Insolvency Dates: 1870 - floating charge introduction"
455:
In re Panama, New
Zealand, and Australia Royal Mail Company
18:
In re Panama, New
Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co
453:
A number of commentators regard the 1870 decision of
123:
Re Panama, New
Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co
32:
Re Panama, New
Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co
96:
86:
81:
73:
65:
55:
45:
31:
175:
160:The appellants relied upon the decision of the
233:
8:
258:Re Panama, NZ & Australian Royal Mail Co
240:
226:
218:
37:
28:
556:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
284:Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd
529:(1879) 15 Ch D 465 at 468, 469 and 472.
516:
514:
427:
309:Siebe Gorman & Co v Barclays Bank
7:
297:Aluminium BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
190:, and having regard to the state of
441:. The Federation Press. p. 3.
551:United Kingdom insolvency case law
25:
403:[2011] EWHC 1948 (Ch)
390:[2007] EWHC 1443 (Ch)
386:Russell Cooke Trust Co v Elliott
271:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
546:United Kingdom company case law
345:Royal Trust Bank v NatWest Bank
204:Re Colonial Trusts Corporation
1:
469:Chima Williams Iheme (2016).
582:
438:Securities over Personalty
357:Re Brumark Investments Ltd
149:. The appeal came before
435:Michael Gillooly (1994).
409:
396:
383:
368:
353:
341:
333:Re New Bullas Trading Ltd
329:
317:
305:
293:
279:
267:
253:
248:Cases on floating charges
101:
36:
520:(1870) 5 Ch App 318, 322
475:. Springer. p. 55.
192:this particular company
377:[2005] UKHL 41
362:[2001] UKPC 28
184:
399:Re Rayford Homes Ltd
372:Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
208:Sir George Jessel MR
188:this particular case
566:1870 in British law
262:(1870) 5 Ch App 318
206:(1879) 15 Ch D 465
151:Sir G.M. Giffard LJ
91:Sir G.M. Giffard LJ
77:(1870) 5 Ch App 318
167:Holroyd v Marshall
423:
422:
417:UK insolvency law
321:Re Brightlife Ltd
312:2 Lloyd’s Rep 142
173:Giffard LJ held:
119:
118:
106:Security interest
16:(Redirected from
573:
561:1870 in case law
530:
527:
521:
518:
509:
508:
506:
504:
493:
487:
486:
466:
460:
459:
432:
413:Floating charges
285:
259:
242:
235:
228:
219:
82:Court membership
69:14 February 1870
41:
29:
21:
581:
580:
576:
575:
574:
572:
571:
570:
536:
535:
534:
533:
528:
524:
519:
512:
502:
500:
495:
494:
490:
483:
468:
467:
463:
449:
434:
433:
429:
424:
419:
405:
392:
379:
364:
349:
337:
325:
313:
301:
289:
283:
275:
263:
257:
249:
246:
216:
200:
143:
132:floating charge
130:to recognise a
115:
111:floating charge
50:Court of Appeal
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
579:
577:
569:
568:
563:
558:
553:
548:
538:
537:
532:
531:
522:
510:
488:
481:
461:
448:978-1862871298
447:
426:
425:
421:
420:
410:
407:
406:
397:
394:
393:
384:
381:
380:
369:
366:
365:
354:
351:
350:
342:
339:
338:
330:
327:
326:
318:
315:
314:
306:
303:
302:
294:
291:
290:
280:
277:
276:
268:
265:
264:
254:
251:
250:
247:
245:
244:
237:
230:
222:
215:
212:
199:
196:
162:House of Lords
142:
139:
117:
116:
114:
113:
108:
102:
99:
98:
94:
93:
88:
84:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
57:
56:Full case name
53:
52:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
578:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
554:
552:
549:
547:
544:
543:
541:
526:
523:
517:
515:
511:
498:
492:
489:
484:
482:9783319418353
478:
474:
473:
465:
462:
458:
456:
450:
444:
440:
439:
431:
428:
418:
414:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
374:
373:
367:
363:
359:
358:
352:
347:
346:
340:
335:
334:
328:
323:
322:
316:
311:
310:
304:
299:
298:
292:
287:
286:
278:
273:
272:
266:
261:
260:
252:
243:
238:
236:
231:
229:
224:
223:
220:
213:
211:
209:
205:
197:
195:
193:
189:
183:
181:
180:mesne profits
174:
171:
169:
168:
163:
158:
156:
152:
148:
140:
138:
135:
133:
129:
125:
124:
112:
109:
107:
104:
103:
100:
95:
92:
89:
87:Judge sitting
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
61:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
525:
501:. Retrieved
491:
471:
464:
454:
452:
437:
430:
398:
385:
370:
355:
343:
331:
319:
307:
295:
281:
269:
255:
203:
201:
191:
187:
185:
176:
172:
165:
159:
144:
136:
122:
121:
120:
59:
26:
128:English law
540:Categories
336:1 BCLC 485
300:1 WLR 676
198:Precedent
155:mortgagee
147:Malins VC
324:1 Ch 200
288:2 Ch 284
141:Decision
97:Keywords
74:Citation
348:BCC 316
66:Decided
479:
445:
503:6 May
401:
388:
375:
360:
274:AC 22
214:Notes
46:Court
505:2017
477:ISBN
443:ISBN
411:see
415:in
164:in
542::
513:^
451:.
134:.
507:.
485:.
241:e
234:t
227:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
