Buchler V Talbot

is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of claims in a liquidation. Under English law at the time the expenses of liquidation took priority over the preferred creditors, and the preferred creditors took priority over the claims of the holder of a floating charge. However, a crystallised floating charge theoretically took priority over the liquidation expenses. Accordingly the courts had to try and reconcile the apparent triangular conflict between priorities.

Facts

In 1992, Leyland DAF Ltd, an English member of the Dutch group DAF Trucks, granted to Stichting Ofasec a mortgage debenture to secure a loan, containing a floating charge. In 1993, the DAF group collapsed, and Ofasec appointed administrative receivers, which crystallised the floating charge into a fixed charge. The receivers realised the assets, paid preferential debts, and made interim distributions to Ofasec. £72m remained. In the Netherlands, litigation was ongoing meaning this sum could have been insufficient to meet the claims of the debenture holder. In 1996, Leyland DAF Ltd entered voluntary liquidation. The liquidator’s costs exceeded the amount realised, but they applied for a declaration that their expenses and pay should come out of the proceeds of the realisation of the assets of Leyland DAF Ltd including those subject to a floating charge.

Rimer J held that under Insolvency Act 1986, section 175(2)(b) the liquidators were entitled to have their expenses. The Court of Appeal agreed. Ofasec appealed.

Judgment

The House of Lords held there was no priority for the liquidator’s expenses, and that ''Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd'' was wrongly decided. Lord Nicholls gave the first judgment, saying that section 175(2)(b) and its predecessors had never authorised liquidators’ costs and expenses.

Lord Hoffmann held that when a company was in receivership and liquidation, the company’s former assets were comprised in two separate funds, each with its own costs of administration. Neither should bear the costs of administering the other. None of the costs and expenses of winding up Leyland DAF Ltd were payable out of the assets under the floating charge until all the principal and interest had been paid.

Lord Millett gave the longest judgment, where he referred to ''Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd'' and why it had been mistaken.

Lord Rodger and Lord Walker agreed.

Subsequent legislation

Very shortly after the decision was handed down it was reversed by legislation under English law. Section 176ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986 effectively reverts the position under English law to what it was believed to have been under ''Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd''. However, ''Buchler v Talbot'' remains good law in a number of other common law jurisdictions.

See also

* UK labour law
* UK insolvency law

References

{{reflist, 2

United Kingdom labour case law