A second charge created under a consent decree and consequential deed of charge was upheld as a valid security interest where the first charge holder's priority remained expressly preserved and the second charge operated only after discharge of the first charge. The Tribunal held that absence of the first charge holder's prior consent did not render the second charge a nullity, and the liquidator was bound by the decree and deed. It also held that Regulation 21 of the Liquidation Process Regulations is enabling, not exhaustive, so security interest may be proved by other valid material. Non-registration under Section 77 of the Companies Act was not, by itself, enough to deny secured status. The appeal was dismissed.
A second charge created under a consent decree and consequential deed of charge was upheld as a valid security interest where the first charge holder's priority remained expressly preserved and the second charge operated only after discharge of the first charge. The Tribunal held that absence of the first charge holder's prior consent did not render the second charge a nullity, and the liquidator was bound by the decree and deed. It also held that Regulation 21 of the Liquidation Process Regulations is enabling, not exhaustive, so security interest may be proved by other valid material. Non-registration under Section 77 of the Companies Act was not, by itself, enough to deny secured status. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
