N V Slavenburg’s Bank v Intercontinental Natural Resources Ltd: ChD 1980

The Bermudan company defendant had assigned stocks as a security. The security was not registered, and nor did the company have any registration within the UK. It was not the practice of the Registrar of Companies to accept particulars of charges for registration from an overseas company with a place of business in England.
Held: The absence of a file for a company at Companies House, through the failure of the oversea company to register its place of business, did not avoid the need to give particulars of any charge to the Registrar. The Bills of Exchange Acts apply to individuals only and not to corporations at all.


Lloyd J


[1980] 1 WLR 1076


Bills of Sale Act 1878 6 8


England and Wales


CitedRead v Joannon 1890
The court considered the application of the 1878 Act.
Held: Where there are a series of Acts dealing with a topic and with similar names, the words ‘this Act’ in expressions such as ‘in this Act’ or ‘under this Act’ must be construed to mean . .
CitedIn re Standard Manufacturing Co CA 1891
Company debentures were expressly excepted from the operation of the Bills of Sales Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882 by section 17 of that Act because they were debentures ‘issued by any mortgage, loan, or other incorporated company’. Nor were . .
CitedGreat Northern Railway Co v Cole Co-Operative Society 1896
A business created under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts is not a company in any standard legal sense. Vaughan Williams J distinguished Standard Manufacturing on the basis that the Court of Appeal was not excluding companies generally . .
CitedClark v Balm, Hill and Co 1908
A company registered in Guernsey issued debentures creating floating charges over real and personal property in England. The court was asked whether the debentures ought to be deemed to be within the Bills of Sales Acts and so ought to have been . .

Cited by:

CitedOnline Catering Ltd v Acton and Another CA 10-Feb-2010
The claimant agreed for the defendant to repair its fleet of vehicles. The defendant, having fees outstanding, entered the claimants’ premises and removed vehicles saying falsely that they were to be repaired, and then refused to return them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Company

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.414892