Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd ; Mathias and Davies (A Firm) v Down
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE SACHS |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J0224-1 |
| Date | 24 February 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
In the Matter of Barleycorr Enterfrises Limited
and
In the Matter of The Companes Act, 1948
[1970] EWCA Civ J0224-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Sachs and
Lord Justice Phillimore
In The Supreme Court of Judicature.
Court of Appeal.
Appeal of defendant from Order of His Honour Judge Sir Owen Temple Horris, Cardiff County Court, on June 12th, 1969.
Mr. GODFREY WOOTTON (instructed by Messrs. Helder Roberts 4 Co., agents for Messrs. Gordon Williams & Co. of Cardiff) appeared on behalf of the Liquidator, Appellant,
Mr. MALCOLL PILL (instructed by Messrs. Halliman, Blackburn, Gittings & Hambleton) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Applicants.
In August 1967 a company, Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd., was put into compulsory winding-up. The directors asked a firm of chartered accountants in Cardiff - Mathias and Davies - to prepare the statement of affairs, They did so. It showed: -
| Assets | £ |
| Cash at Bank | 542 |
| Other assets | 4,202 |
| 4,744 | |
| Preferential Claims | £ |
| Rates and wages | 2,161 |
| Money adavaced by Bank for Wages | 3,000 |
| 5,161 |
It also showed that the Bank had a floating charge under a debenture for £5,971. of which £3,000 were the moneys advanced for wages.
It is plain from those figures that the preferential claims exhausted all the assets. So there was nothing left for the general body of creditors. Mow the question arises as to the fees payable to the chartered accountants for preparing the statement of affairs. Their fees came to £202.10s. cd., and were approved by the Official Receiver. The liquidator says that they rank behind the preferential claims and even behind the debenture holders. So the accountants get nothing. But the accountants say that they are entitled to their fees in priority to the preferential claims. They are part of the costs of winding up which, they say, come first.
The Judge (Sir Temple Morris) held that the chartered accountants were entitled to their fees first. The liquidator appeals to this Court.
The Companies Acts contain provisions regulating the order of payment out of the "assets" of the company. The question is;What does the word "assets" mean in this context? Especially when there is a floating charge.
Two of the material sections go back to 1362, but I will read them as they stand, re-enacted in the 1948 Act in the same words as in 1862:-
Section 267 applies in a compulsory winding up:
"The Court may, in the event of the assets being insufficient to satisfy the liabilities, make an order as to the payment out of the assets of the costs, charges and expenses incurred in the winding up in such order or priority as the Court thinks Just.
Section 309 applies in a voluntary winding up:
All costs, charges and expenses properly incurred in the winding up, including the remuneration of the liquidator, shall be payable out of the assets of the company in priority to all other claims."
The word "assets" in these sections in 1862 was used as meaning only those free assets which were not the subject of a floating charge. In those days it was held that, when there was a debenture which gave the creditor a floating charge over the property of toe company, then, as soon as the charge crystallised on a winding up, the property did not belong to the company but to the debenture holder. It was, therefore, not included in the "assets" of the company and was not available for any of the general costs of the winding up. If the floating charge covered all the property, the debenture holder took it all, subject only to the costs of realising it, e. g. the auctioneer's charges: see In re Marine mansions Company (1867) L R. 4 Equity 601; In re Oriental Hotels Company (1871) L. R. 12 Equity Cases 126 at page 133: and In re Regent's canal Ironworks Company, ex parte Grissell (1875) 3 Oh. D. at page 427 by Lord Justice James.
In 1888 and 1397 Parliament began to use the word: "assets" in a different sense. It used the word "assets" so as to include not only the free assets, but also all those assets which were subject to a floating charge. It used the word in this new sense in the statute which created, for the first time, "preferentialpayments". These were rates, taxes and wages. They took priority over a floating charge. This was done by section 1 of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, as amended by section 2 of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act, 1987. The sections of the 1888 and 1897 Acts were re- enacted in the Consolidation Acts of 1908, 1929 and 1948. I will read them as they now appear in the 1948 Act and underline the significant words:-
Section 319 (1) to (4):
"In a winding up there shall be paid, in priority to all other debts", rates, taxes, wages and so forth.
(5) The foregoing debts shall
(a) rank equally among themselves and be paid in full, unless the assets are insufficient to meet them, in which case they shall abate in equal proportions;
(b) in the case of a company registered in England or Scotland, so far as the assets of the company available for payment of general creditors are insufficient to meet them, have priority over the claims of holders of debentures under any floating charge created by the company, and be paid accordingly out of any property contained in or subject to that charge;
(c) Subject to the retention of such sums as may be necessary for the costs and expenses of the winding; up, the fore going debts shall be discharged forthwith so far as the assets are sufficient to meet them.
Those sections show quite clearly that since 1897 a debenture holder, who holds a floating charge, can no longer sweep up all the company's property for his own benefit before he takes any of it, there have to be paid:-
(i) "Such sums as may be necessary for the costs and expenses of the winding up", see section 319 (5)(c)
(ii) the preferential claims for rates, taxes, wages, and so forth. They are the "foregoing debts" which are given priority over the floating charge, see section 319(5) (b).
The sections also show that the legislature is using the word "assets" in a different sense from what it did before 1897. When there is a floating charge, the legislature no longer regards the property as belonging wholly to the debenture holder. The property which is subject to the charge forms part of the "assets" of the company which are to be applied first, in payment of the costs and expenses of the (winding up, second, in payment of the preferential claims, and only third in payment of the debenture holder.
The word "assets" in sections 267 and 309, which go back to 1862, must, I think, be now interpreted in this new sense and not in the sense in which it was interpreted by the Courts before 1897. So without changing the word, we have changed its meaning. It bears a different meaning now from what it did in 1862. This is unusual, but necessary in order to make sense of the legislation as a whole. Sections 267 and 309 now mean that, when there is a floating charge, the "assets" include all the property which is subject to the charge. The costs of the winding up...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leyland Daf Ltd, Re sub nom Buchler v Talbot
...1 BCLC 419, [2002] 1 BCLC 511. They were bound to do so, by the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd [1970] Ch 465. In that case the issue now under consideration arose in the context of the relevant section of the Companies Act 1948, section 319. The Court o......
-
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Dtz Debenham Tie Leung Ltd (Respondent/Claimant)
...the position of floating charge-holders above the entitlement to priority debtors. The Court of Appeal decision in England of Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd [1972] All ER 155 has been regularly followed. 13 In this country, Re Barleycorn has, it seems, been overturned by the House of Lords d......
-
Buchler and another v Talbot and Others
...charge was a floating charge "as created". Recent authority 14 The point is not free from authority. In In re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd [1970] Ch 465 the Court of Appeal held that: "Since the coming into force of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1897, the word "assets......
-
Beggasa Ltd ((in Receivership))
...of the House of Lords in 2004 in Buchler v. Talbot. There, the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd. [1970] Ch. 465 — in which it had been held that the property comprised in a floating charge formed part of the assets of a company for the purposes of paying ......
-
Table of Cases
...746, 98 SJ 557 22.67 Barclays Bank plc v Homan [1993] BCLC 680, [1992] BCC 757, ChD 24.72 Table of Cases xlix Barleycorn Enterprises, Re [1970] Ch 465, [1970] 2 WLR 898, [1970] 2 All ER 155, CA 15.31 Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37, [2006] 1 WLR ......
-
AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROPERTY AND INSOLVENCY: THE INSOLVENT COMPANY’S ENCUMBERED ASSETS
...11 In general, most of the arguments made here apply in substance also in relation to IA 1986 s 115. 12 Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd [1970] Ch 465. 13 At [81]. 14 At [41]. 15 At [41]. 16 At [81]. 17 At [29] and [30]. 18 At [16] (original emphasis). 19 At [16]. 20 See, eg, Mokal, “Separate ......
-
Receivers and the Rights of Secured Creditors under Bermuda Law
...registered under one of the other Registers of Security. 9 Re Leyland Daf; Buchler v Talbot [2004] UKHL 9. 10 Re Barleycorn Enterprises [1970] Ch 465. 11 Companies Act 2006 (UK), section 1282. Bermuda Registers of Security 15.35 The Registrar of Companies is required to keep a Register of C......