Search Results for: Insolvency Rules 1986 4.90

Click the case name for better results:

Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) (No 8): CA 2 Oct 1996

Not all debts which were eligible for proof in bankruptcy were also eligible for a set off. Rose Ljexplained the doctrine of equitable marshallling, saying: ‘The doctrine of marshalling applies where there are two creditors of the same debtor, each owed a different debt, one creditor (A) having two or more securities for the debt … Continue reading Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) (No 8): CA 2 Oct 1996

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Frid: HL 13 May 2004

The company went into insolvent liquidation. The secretary of state was to make payments to employees and there were other state preferential creditors. At the same time a refund of VAT was due from the Commissioners of customs and Excise. Held: The sums paid out and preferential debts could be set off against the VAT … Continue reading Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Frid: HL 13 May 2004

Morris and Others v Agrichemicals Ltd and Others: CA 20 Dec 1995

No mandatory set off on liquidation without the requirement for mutuality. The Court accepted a proposition that a chargeback arrangement was inefficiency, no implication followed as to the recourse against the Depositor of a collateral security. Citations: Times 08-Jan-1996 Statutes: Insolvency Rules 1986 4.90 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Tam Wing Chuen … Continue reading Morris and Others v Agrichemicals Ltd and Others: CA 20 Dec 1995