The claimant took equipment under leases. After the initial period the rentals would be renewed without substantial further rental payments. The company went into administration after or toward the end of the initial period, and the lessors sought to reclaim the equipment. The administrators sought to sell it. During the case an order was made for it to be sold. After that sale, an order for relief from forfeiture could no longer be made.
Held: For an order for the sale of property in proceedings it had to be of a perishable value, and the action had to concern it. That applied here. To be such, an order should not affect the underlying position of the parties, even if it did affect the remedies which were available to give them effect. The application for relief from forfeiture was a means to an end: that of obtaining the underlying value. That was still achievable, and the order for sale had been valid.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
Times 02-May-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] UKHL 13, [2003] 1 AC 368, [2002] CLC 1140, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 641, [2002] BCC 673, [2002] 2 WLR 919, [2002] 2 All ER 949
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – On Demand Information Plc and Another v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and Another CA 19-Sep-2000
The power to grant relief from forfeiture in finance leases was real, but ceased to be available after property repossessed by the finance company had been contracted for sale by the applicants. The application for relief was in its nature, an . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – On Demand Information Plc and Another v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and Another CA 19-Sep-2000
The power to grant relief from forfeiture in finance leases was real, but ceased to be available after property repossessed by the finance company had been contracted for sale by the applicants. The application for relief was in its nature, an . .
Cited – Sirius International Insurance Company (Publ) v FAI General Insurance Limited and others HL 2-Dec-2004
The appellant had taken certain insurance risks on behalf of the respondents, subject to banking indemnities. Disputes arose and were settled under a Tomlin order, which was now itself subject to challenge.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Equity
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169832
