header-logo header-logo

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

Company

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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll