83,250
edits
Re Spectrum Plus: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
===In a {{nutshell}}=== | ===In a {{nutshell}}=== | ||
Yes, you can take a {{tag|fixed charge}} over [[book debts]], but if you want to it to be enforceable, you must have practical control of the item, and a legal right to stop the [[chargor]] walking off with it. | Yes, you can take a {{tag|fixed charge}} over [[book debts]], but if you want to it to be enforceable, you must have practical control of the item, and a legal right to stop the [[chargor]] walking off with it. | ||
==Issues== | |||
*[[Stare decisis]]: Does a newly decided strand of common law apply to contracts pre-dating its development, which were concluded on the assumption of contrary rules? | |||
*[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]: If you call it a [[fixed charge]], you know, ''is it''? | |||
==[[Stare decisis]]== | |||
{{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} overruled the earlier decision of Si''ebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd'' [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 142. This meant charges drafted as fixed charges on honest reliance on that principal were suddently questionable. Given the time value of charge registration this potentially invalidated or at the very least severely 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? | ||
The traditional approach was stated crisply by Lord Reid in ''West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc v Birmingham Corporation'' [1970] AC 874, 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.” | |||
Later on, Lord Nicholls said: | |||
:“Whatever its faults the retrospective application of court rulings is straightforward. Prospective overruling creates problems of discrimination. Born out of a laudable wish to mitigate the seeming unfairness of a retrospective change in the law, prospective overruling can beget unfairness of its own. | |||
:“This is most marked in criminal cases, where ‘pure’ prospective overruling would leave a successful defendant languishing in prison.” | |||
While the court didn’t rule out the idea of prospective overruling —“‘Never say never’ is a wise judicial precept, in the interests of all citizens of the country” — this present case was “miles away from the exceptional category in which alone prospective overruling would be legitimate” | |||
==[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]== | |||
Whether a {{tag|charge}} over present and future [[book debts]], where: | Whether a {{tag|charge}} over present and future [[book debts]], where: | ||
*the chargor cannot dispose of or charge the uncollected book debts but | *the chargor cannot dispose of or charge the uncollected book debts but | ||