(Cayman Islands) In the course of trading the company had given security to carry on its insurance business. On its insolvency, the administrators required the creditor to bring into hotchpot credit received in a foreign jurisdiction. It was said that having obtained an advantage over other unsecured creditors for the amount secured, the claiming creditor should make available to all creditors the payment already received.
Held: The difference here, was that the payment received had arisen from a letter of credit, and had never been part of the insolvent company’s estate. Hotchpot applies only to assets regarded as part of the estate in liquidation. Rule 4.88 did not operate as an exception to the hotchpot rules. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Steyn Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Patrick Russell
Citations:
Appeal No 5 of 2000, [2001] UKPC 6
Links:
Statutes:
Insolvency Rules 1986 4.88 4.96
Citing:
Cited – Banco de Portugal v Waddell HL 1880
There was both an English and a foreign insolvency, the debtors having traded as wine merchants in England and in Portugal. They presented a petition for their adjudication in bankruptcy in England in December 1877. Insolvency proceedings were taken . .
Cited – Selkrig v Davis 1814
Rules in Hotchpot . .
Cited – Ex parte Wilson 1871
Hotchpot principles . .
Cited – Moor v Anglo-Italian Bank CA 1879
The defendant bank had a mortgage over land in Florence belonging to a company in liquidation. The liquidator of the company applied to the court to restrain the bank from realising its security.
Held: The application failed. Jessel M.R. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Company, Commonwealth, Wills and Probate
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163274
