83,229
edits
Re Spectrum Plus: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]: If you call it a [[fixed charge]], you know, ''is it''? | *[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]: If you call it a [[fixed charge]], you know, ''is it''? | ||
====[[Stare decisis]] and the possibility of [[prospective overruling]]==== | ====[[Stare decisis]] and the possibility of [[prospective overruling]]==== | ||
{{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} overruled the earlier decision of | {{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} overruled the earlier decision of {{cite|Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd|Barclays Bank Ltd|1979|2Lloyd’sRep|142}}. This meant charges drafted as fixed charges on honest reliance on that principle — that it didn’t matter so much if you didn’t have practical control — were suddenly questionable. Given the “time value” of charge registration — the first-in-time prevails, so if you have to re-take your charge you are going right to the back of the queue — this potentially invalidated or at least weakened a whole lot of security documents. So could the court apply “[[prospective overruling]]” such that existing charges entered into in good faith in reliance on ''Siebe Gorman'' would be upheld? | ||
For one thing, that would be a real bummer from Spectrum Plus’s point of view — fancy winning a landmark House of Lords case but — well, hard lines fellas. But [[Little old ladies make bad law|Little old book-debt securitisers make bad law]], right? | For one thing, that would be a real bummer from Spectrum Plus’s point of view — fancy winning a landmark House of Lords case but — well, hard lines fellas. But [[Little old ladies make bad law|Little old book-debt securitisers make bad law]], right? | ||
The traditional approach was stated crisply by Lord Reid in | The traditional approach was stated crisply by Lord Reid in {{cite|West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc|Birmingham Corporation|1970|AC874}}, 898-899, a case concerning compulsory acquisition: <br> | ||
:“We cannot say that the law was one thing yesterday but is to be something different tomorrow. If we decide that [the existing rule] is wrong we must decide that it always has been wrong, and that would mean that in many completed transactions owners have received too little compensation. But that often happens when an existing decision is reversed.” | :“We cannot say that the law was one thing yesterday but is to be something different tomorrow. If we decide that [the existing rule] is wrong we must decide that it always has been wrong, and that would mean that in many completed transactions owners have received too little compensation. But that often happens when an existing decision is reversed.” | ||
Later on, Lord Nicholls said: | Later on, Lord Nicholls said: | ||