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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll