The company lent money to farmers secured against their milk quotas. They had to petition for a winding up, and the liquidators requested authority to continue the milk loan repayment schemes. The milk quotas had been vested in the farmers, and the liquidators sought directions form the court as to protection of the milk quotas, which it had been decided, was property capable of being held in trust. The milk quotas were protected by means of tenancy agreements, but an attempt was made to forfeit, or surrender, certain tenancy agreements, which would defeat the arrangement protecting the liquidators. The judge made a ‘safe haven’ order to protect the quotas. That order was appealed.
Held: Under the agreements, the company could require the re-transfer of the milk quota to farmers who completed the loan repayments. If the borrower defaulted, the quota could be sold defeating the equity of redemption. Milk quota may be an ‘asset’ for the purposes of capital gains tax; or property for the purposes of the law of trusts. The safe haven order was properly made.
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lady Justice Hale And Sir Martin Nourse
[2001] EWCA Civ 145
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 112, Council Regulations (EEC) 856/84 and 857/84, Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Harries v Barclays Bank Plc CA 16-Jul-1997
Milk quotas. . .
Cited – Wachauf v Bundesamt Fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft ECJ 13-Jul-1989
ECJ 1. The term ‘holding’ in Article 12(d) of Council Regulation No 857/84 relating to the application of the additional levy on milk covers all the agricultural production units which are the subject of a lease, . .
Cited – Deverges v Sandeman Clark and Co 1-Mar-1902
It is an incident of a mortgage of chattels and choses in action that the mortgagee has a power of sale exercisable if the defendant fails to pay the monies due on the day fixed for payment or where no day is fixed after a proper demand and notice . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Agriculture, Equity
Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.147419