Re Hi-Fi Equipment (Cabinets) Limited: ChD 11 Jun 1987

The company had charged by way of a first fixed charge all future freehold and leasehold property together with trade fixtures and otherwise. The company used heavy machinery which rested on the floor of its premises. The chargee claimed a fixed charge over the machinery.
Held: The charge created one fixed charge over ‘fixed plant and machinery’. Machinery which merely rested on the premises did not meet the requirement of being firmly attached to the premises. The machinery was therefore subject only to the floating charge and was available to the general creditors.


Harman J


[1988] BCLC 65


England and Wales


CitedReynolds v Ashby and Son HL 1904
Machines had been affixed to the premises. The court was asked whether they were caught by a fixed charge over the company’s land and fixed assets.
Held: The machines were fixed by bolts only and no damage would be caused to the building by . .
CitedHulme v Brigham 1943
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.272306