Re Spectrum Plus: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:


===In other words===
===In other words===
*[[Beware of magic words]].
[[Beware of magic words]].
{{seealso}}
{{seealso}}
{{casenote1|Re Lehman Brothers International}}
{{casenote1|Re Lehman Brothers International}}

Revision as of 10:02, 17 January 2018

Re Spectrum Plus [2005] UKHL 41[1] is an important case about fixed charges.

Issue

Whether a charge over present and future book debts, where:

  • the chargor cannot dispose of or charge the uncollected book debts but
  • the charger can deal with debtors and collect the debts and
  • the chargor must deposit collected debts in a designated account with the charge, but
  • the chargor can then freely draw on the account as long as it doesn't exceed the overdraft

is capable in law of being a fixed charge.

The facts

  • Spectrum had an overdraft with the NatWest.
  • NatWest took a fixed charge over its book debts to secure the overdraft. it required Spectrum to pay the debts into the overdraft account. It did not prevent Spectrum withdrawing them.
  • The bank never sought to exercise any control over Spectrum’s withdrawals from the account.
  • Spectrum never exceeded its overdraft. Nor did Spectrum ever go into credit.

You can see where this is going, can’t you.

When Spectrum, inevitably, went bust, it owed NatWest £165,407 on the account. Its uncollected book debts had a face value of £291,293, and a likely collection value of £156,544. You know, like roughly. Other unsecured creditors wanted a piece of the action.

So ...?

Ruling

“The correct conclusion, in my opinion, is that the debenture, although expressed to grant the bank a fixed charge over Spectrum's book debts, in law granted only a floating charge.

In other words

Beware of magic words.”

See also

Re Lehman Brothers International