Royal Trust Bank v Buchler: Difference between revisions
m Removing from Category:1989 in case law using Cat-a-lot |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} |
|||
'''''Royal Trust Bank v Buchler''''' [1989] BCLC 130 is a [[UK insolvency law]] case, which decided that before a creditor may enforce security, it must show it is appropriate to do so. |
'''''Royal Trust Bank v Buchler''''' [1989] BCLC 130 is a [[UK insolvency law]] case, which decided that before a creditor may enforce security, it must show it is appropriate to do so. |
||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
{{reflist|2}} |
{{reflist|2}} |
||
[[Category:United Kingdom insolvency case law]] |
|||
[[Category: |
[[Category:1989 in United Kingdom case law]] |
||
Latest revision as of 04:47, 9 April 2023
Royal Trust Bank v Buchler [1989] BCLC 130 is a UK insolvency law case, which decided that before a creditor may enforce security, it must show it is appropriate to do so.
Facts[edit]
Mr Buchler's company borrowed £500,000 from Royal Trust Bank. It purchased and refurbished some property to let it out again. The loan was secured by a charge entitling the bank to appoint a receiver. When an administrator was appointed, he decided it would be best to go ahead letting the property and then sell. Letting failed. The administrator decided to sell. The property got £850,000, and the bank sought leave under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.11(3) (see now, Schedule B) to enforce its security.
Judgment[edit]
Peter Gibson J refused the bank leave. He held the bank failed to discharge its burden of showing a proper case to enforce security. The decision to delay the property's sale was a sound one, and if it was sold the bank could be paid in full. If the bank was allowed to appoint a receiver, costs would be increased, which would decrease assets available to all creditors.