header-logo header-logo

Company

06 December 2013
Issue: 7587 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

BAT Industries PLC v Windward Prospects Ltd [2013] EWHC 3612 (Comm), [2013] All ER (D) 265 (Nov)

The court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver under s 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in all cases in which it appeared to the court to be just and convenient to do so. In the context of receivers, s 37(1) was not to be taken as conferring an “unfettered power”. The demands of justice were the overriding consideration in considering the scope of the jurisdiction under s 37(1). A receiver by way of equitable execution might be appointed over an asset whether or not the asset was presently amenable to execution at law; and the jurisdiction to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution could be developed incrementally to apply old principles to new situations. 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll