Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1991
Date1991
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
8 cases
  • Starling v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 Octubre 1999
    ... ... Mr Phillips relied on Shamji v Johnson MattheyUNK ((1991) BCLC 278, 283) and Medforth v BlakeWLR ... ...
  • Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and Others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd (No 2)
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 16 Julio 2003
    ...HC (not folld) Ronald Elwyn Lister Ltd v Dunlop Canada Ltd (1982) 135 DLR (3d) 1, SC (not folld) Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36 (folld) Sheppard & Cooper Ltd v TSB Bank plc [1996] BCC 653 (refd) Toms v Wilson (1862) 4 B&S 442; (1862) 122 ER 524 (refd) Waldron v Royal Ba......
  • Ocean Chimo Ltd v RBTT Bank Jamaica Ltd and RBTT Bank Ltd
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • 23 Agosto 2011
    ...excessive. 47 That the principle is not restricted to mortgage securities, in the strict sense, is made clear in Shamji and others v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd and others [1991] BCLC 36. That was a case in which the claimants sought to restrain its bankers from appointing a receiver despi......
  • Kenneth Starling v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 Octubre 1999
    ...by Hoffmann J. in Shamji v Johnson Matthey [1991] B.C.L.C. 278 at pp. 283–4, approved as they were by this court on the appeal ( [1991] B.C.L.C. 36 at p. 41). There that judge recognised the possibility that an exercise by a mortgagee of a right to appoint a receiver might "perhaps" be chal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • DUTIES OF A MORTGAGEE AND A RECEIVER: WHERE SINGAPORE SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT FOLLOW ENGLISH LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 Diciembre 2008
    ...and indeed obliged to give priority to the interests of the mortgagee in securing repayment.). 63 [1986] BCLC 278 at 283—284, affirmed [1991] BCLC 36 (CA). 64 [1971] Ch 949 (CA) at 965—966. 65 [1999] 1 WLR 1713 (CA) at 1729. 66 The Law of Administrators and Receivers of Companies (Gavin Lig......
  • Insolvency Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 Diciembre 2003
    ...per se is insufficient. The leading judicial statements in this respect by the English courts in Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd[1991] BCLC 36 and Medforth v Blake[2000] Ch 86 were approved by the court. 14.49 The court then rejected the appellants” argument that the bank”s appointment......
  • Security, Insolvency and Risk: Who Pays the Price?
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 62-5, September 1999
    • 1 Septiembre 1999
    ...The receiver owes no separate duty to unsecuredcreditors: Lathia vDronsfield [1987] BCLC 321.186 Shamji vJohnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36.187 See Goode, n 185 above, 192.188 But see AIB Finance Ltd vAlsop and Anor [1998] BCC 780.189 A company’s business (or part of it) can be hive......
  • Insolvency Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 Diciembre 2002
    ...and manager. It was not disputed that the law in Singapore is as stated in the English case of Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36, that is, that a debenture holder is not under a duty of care to consider all relevant matters before appointing a receiver and manager. The deb......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT