Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd

Last updated

Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd
CourtCourt of Appeal
Citation(s)[1991] BCLC 36
Case history
Prior action(s)[1986] BCLC 278
Keywords
Administration

Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.

Contents

Facts

Shamji controlled a group of companies. They were in debt to JMB who had mortgages and guarantees. JMB wanted payment. The bank agreed to release the debt if Shamji paid £14m within 21 days and this could be extended by 14 days if the bank viewed negotiations as proceeding properly. Six days after the 21-day period, JMB appointed receivers. Shamji and the companies went to court for an injunction, arguing the bank had breached the contract. They argued there was a duty on JMB as mortgagee, when appointing a receiver, to consider relevant matters including the effect of an appointment on refinancing negotiations.

Judgment

High Court

Hoffmann J dismissed the appeal. He said the bank was entitled contractually to appoint receivers. It owed no duty of care when doing so to any mortgagor or guarantor. It was protecting its interests and could not be challenged.

Court of Appeal

Oliver LJ affirmed the decision of Hoffmann J. Nourse LJ agreed.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Insolvency</span> State of being unable to pay ones debts

    In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company (debtor), at maturity; those in a state of insolvency are said to be insolvent. There are two forms: cash-flow insolvency and balance-sheet insolvency.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Johnson Matthey</span> British multinational chemicals and sustainable technologies company

    Johnson Matthey is a British multinational speciality chemicals and sustainable technologies company headquartered in London, England. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">English trust law</span> Creation and protection of asset funds

    English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is a growing body of legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom insolvency law</span> Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

    <i>Re Brumark Investments Ltd</i>

    Agnew v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, more commonly referred to as Re Brumark Investments Ltd[2001] UKPC 28 is a decision of the Privy Council relating to New Zealand and UK insolvency law, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets, the proper characterisation of a floating charge, and the priority of creditors in a company winding-up.

    <i>Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd</i> 1976 UK legal case

    Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning a quasi-security interest in a company's assets and priority of creditors in a company winding up.

    Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 214 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets and priority of creditors in a company winding up.

    <i>Illingworth v Houldsworth</i>

    Illingworth v Houldsworth [1904] AC 355 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets with a floating charge. In the Court of Appeal Romer LJ held that a key to a floating charge, as opposed to a fixed charge was that the company can carry on its business with assets subject to the charge.

    <i>Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd</i>

    Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd [1965] Ch 148 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable floating charges for past value. It holds that a floating charge can harden when it secures a debt in an overdraft account, when the bank keeps the facility open as a company takes money out and puts money in.

    <i>Re Peveril Gold Mines Ltd</i>

    Re Peveril Gold Mines Ltd [1898] 1 Ch 122 is a UK insolvency law case concerning liquidation when a company is unable to repay its debts. It held that a member cannot be prevented by a company constitution from bringing a winding up petition. It is, however, possible for a member to make a shareholder agreement and thus contract out of the right to bring a winding up petition outside of the company.

    <i>Stonegate Securities Ltd v Gregory</i>

    Stonegate Securities Ltd v Gregory [1980] Ch 576 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the liquidation procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts. It held that a winding up petition would not be granted to a petitioner to whom a debt was bona fide under dispute.

    <i>Oldham v Kyrris</i>

    Oldham v Kyrris[2003] EWCA Civ 1506 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.

    <i>Powdrill v Watson</i>

    Powdrill v Watson [1995] 2 AC 394 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.

    <i>Re Charnley Davies Ltd (No 2)</i>

    Re Charnley Davies Ltd [1990] BCLC 760 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts. It held that an administrator would only breach a duty of care if an ordinary, skilled practitioner would have acted differently.

    Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc [1990] EWCA Civ 20 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.

    <i>Medforth v Blake</i>

    Medforth v Blake[1999] EWCA Civ 1482 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the duties of a receiver and manager in the United Kingdom, over and above a duty of good faith, as to the manner in which he conducts a business.

    <i>Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd</i>

    Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd [1992] UKPC 34 is a New Zealand insolvency law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the nature and extent of the liability of a mortgagee, or a receiver and manager, to a mortgagor or a subsequent debenture holder for his actions.

    Administration in United Kingdom law is the main kind of procedure in UK insolvency law when a company is unable to pay its debts. The management of the company is usually replaced by an insolvency practitioner whose statutory duty is to rescue the company, save the business, or get the best result possible. It is the equivalent of Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, although with significant differences. While creditors with a security interest over all a company's assets could control the procedure previously through receivership, the Enterprise Act 2002 made administration the main procedure.

    <i>Buchler v Talbot</i>

    Buchler v Talbot[2004] UKHL 9 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of claims in a liquidation. Under English law at the time the expenses of liquidation took priority over the preferred creditors, and the preferred creditors took priority over the claims of the holder of a floating charge. However, a crystallised floating charge theoretically took priority over the liquidation expenses. Accordingly the courts had to try and reconcile the apparent triangular conflict between priorities.

    <i>National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd</i>

    National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd [1972] AC 785 is a decision of the House of Lords in relation to a banker's right to combine accounts under English law. It is the leading English case and a banker's right to combine accounts, and also an important decision relating to insolvency set-off.

    References