Receivership in UK Law

In this Topic
Leading Cases
  • Capewell v HM Revenue and Customs
    • House of Lords
    • 31 Ene 2007

    It has always been a basic principle of receivership that the receiver is entitled to be indemnified in respect of his costs and expenses, and his remuneration if he is entitled to be remunerated, out of the assets in his hands as receiver. Warrington J stated the principle in a well-known passage in Boehm v Goodall [1911] 1 Ch 155, 161:

    I have set out the decision in Hughes at some length because it does in my opinion state clearly and correctly the somewhat opaque relationship between the general law of receivership and the detailed provisions of CJA 1988. The real issue in this appeal is not whether Hughes was rightly decided, but whether it is no longer good law as a result of the coming into force of CPR 69.7.

    In my opinion CPR 69.7 has not had that far-reaching and surprising result. The function of CPR 69 is to set out a procedural code applicable to the generality of receiverships of all types. Its text gives no indication that its draftsman had particularly in mind the new species of receiverships in support of restraint orders and confiscation orders.

    A receiver takes on heavy responsibilities when he accepts appointment, and he is entitled to the security of knowing that the terms of his appointment will not be changed retrospectively—even if an appellate court later decides that the receivership should have been terminated at an earlier date.

  • Sinclair v Glatt and Others
    • Court of Appeal
    • 13 Mar 2009

    It is now settled that such a receiver, like a receiver at common law, is entitled to recover his remuneration, costs and expenses from the assets which he has been appointed to receive (“the receivership assets”). That is so whether or not he ought to have been appointed in the first place or the order appointing him has been discharged, see Mellor v Mellor [1992] 1 WLR 517.

  • Powdrill and Another v Watson and Another ; Talbot and Another v Cadge and Another ; Talbot and Another v Grundy and Another
    • House of Lords
    • 16 Mar 1995

    In my judgment as Mr. Sumption submitted adoption in sections 19 and 44 can only connote some conduct by the administrator or receiver which amounts to an election to treat the continued contract of employment with the company as giving rise to a separate liability in the administration or receivership. In my judgment as Mr. Sumption submitted adoption in sections 19 and 44 can only connote some conduct by the administrator or receiver which amounts to an election to treat the continued contract of employment with the company as giving rise to a separate liability in the administration or receivership.

  • Gomba Holdings U.K. Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 Jul 1988

    The result is that the receiver, in the course of the receivership, performs duties on behalf of the debenture holder as well as the mortgagor. And these duties may relate closely to the affairs of the entity which is the subject of the receivership.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • GRANT ADAMS V THE QUEEN
    • Núm. 3-2, Febrero 1995
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
    • 191-199
    This appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), which is still the highest court of appeal for certain Commonwealth jurisdictions, concerned conduct associated with the Equiticor...
  • Case study illustrations of a scorecard to measure IT strategy improvements in UK SMEs
    • Núm. 11-1, Enero 2009
    • Journal of Systems and Information Technology
    • 24-42
    Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a means of measuring information technology (IT) strategy improvements in small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). Design/methodology/approach...
  • Coopers and Lybrand fined.
    • Núm. 2001, Enero 2001
    • Financial Management (UK)
    • Brief Article
    ...... Lybrand, now part of PwC, has been fined 100,000 [pounds sterling] for its involvement with leisure firm Resort Hotels, which went into receivership in 1993 following a serious fraud by its managing director Mark Harwood. An Accountants' Joint Disciplinary Tribunal also fined former Coopers and ......
  • ICIC (Overseas) Ltd v Adham & Others
    • Núm. 5-3, Marzo 1997
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
    • 270-272
    The background to this action involved allegations of fraud by the Plaintiff, (some of which had been proved) against the Defendants which had already given rise to protracted litigation.
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results