Suvarna Garge (Editor)

Re Brumark Investments Ltd

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Court
  
Privy Council

Re Brumark Investments Ltd httpsuploadwikimediaorgwikipediacommonsthu

Full case name
  
Agnew v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Citation(s)
  
[2001] UKPC 28, [2001] 2 AC 710, [2001] 2 BCLC 188

Similar
  
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd, National Provincial Bank v C, British India Steam Na, British Eagle Internatio, Re Barleycorn Enterpris

Re Brumark Investments Ltd [2001] UKPC 28 is a New Zealand and 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.

Contents

Facts

Brumark Investments Ltd gave security over debts to its bank, Westpac. The terms were that its security was a fixed charge, but a floating charge when proceeds were collected (the same as drafted as in Re New Bullas Trading Ltd). Brumark was free to collect debts for its own account and to use proceeds in its business. Brumark went into receivership. The receivers collected the outstanding debts.

Fisher J held that uncollected debts were subject to a fixed charge, as the parties had agreed. So they were not subject to claims of preferential creditors. The NZ Court of Appeal overturned this and held that the fact Brumark could collect the debts for its own account (and hence remove them from the bank's security) made it a floating charge. So the preferential creditors had a prior claim.

Advice

The Privy Council adviseeed that it was indeed a floating charge. It said the court's task is not to ask whether the parties intended to create a fixed or floating charge, but to ask what rights the parties intended to create, and then decide as a matter of law whether it is fixed or floating. Lord Millett held that Nourse LJ's approach in New Bullas based on freedom of contract was 'fundamentally mistaken'. The process of construction required assessing what was intended, but this meant looking at the substance of the transaction, not its form. He noted that in Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd and In re Keenan Bros Ltd the proceeds of the book debts were not at the free disposal of the company - that is why these were fixed charges - the proceeds were not available to the company as a source of its cash flow.

References

Re Brumark Investments Ltd Wikipedia