Legal Issues In The Creation of Security - Part 2
SECURITY OVER FUTURE ASSETS
The common law has always denied the legality of taking
security over future assets (ie assets which do not yet exist).
At common law, therefore, security over future property by way
of a mortgage or a charge is invalid. However, in Holroyd v
Marshall37, the House of Lords held that
security over future assets is valid in equity by virtue of the
contract of assignment. Hence, while it is not possible to have
a legal mortgage over future assets, it is possible to take an
equitable mortgage or charge over future assets. Security by
way of pledge or lien, however, can never be taken over future
assets, because there can be no physical delivery of future
assets.
Attachment of security to existing assets takes place, when
possession passes (pledges and liens), when legal title is
conveyed (legal mortgages) or when the security agreement is
made or when money is advanced (equitable mortgages and
charges). Before Holroyd, however, it was difficult to
conceive of when attachment would take place in the case of a
security over future assets. In Holroyd, it was
decided that security over future assets attaches automatically
once the assets are acquired, with no fresh consideration
needed.
Once attachment has taken place, the security still takes
effect from the date of creation of the security agreement.
This means that even though attachment does not happen until
the assets are acquired, once they are acquired priority will
be governed by the date of the original security agreement.
SECURITY OVER BOOK DEBTS
Security may be taken over a book debt either by a mortgage
or a charge. Strictly speaking, the security will be over
either the right to payment of the debt or the proceeds of the
debt.
Security by legal mortgage
A legal mortgage over a debt is created by a legal
assignment. An assignment must be by writing, must not purport
to be by way of charge only and must be of the whole debt. The
assignee will take subject to equities such as a prior
perfected equitable assignment and accrued rights of set off.
The assignee does not therefore have the full rights of a bona
fide purchaser for value. He will however, after having given
express notice in writing to the debtor, be able to sue for the
debt in his own name.
Security by equitable mortgage
An equitable mortgage over a debt is created by equitable
assignment. Any other equitable assignment can be created
informally subject to an act by the assignor manifesting an
intention to make a present assignment. Additionally, if the
assignment is over future debts, the assignment will only take
effect in equity as an agreement to assign and must be
supported by consideration.
There is no requirement that notice need be given to the
debtor. However, if an equitable mortgagee wishes to convert
its security to a legal mortgage, it can do so by giving notice
to the debtor. Often, however, an assignee will not wish to
give notice for commercial reasons - such as the assignor
not wishing the debtor to know about the assignment or the
assignee preferring that the assignor continues to collect
payment of the debt.
An equitable mortgagee differs from a legal mortgagee in
that he cannot sue the debtor without joining the assignor as a
party to the proceedings either as plaintiff or defendant.
Security by charge
A mere chargee in respect of a charge over a debt has no
right to sue the underlying debtor. He may require the chargor
to sue and he will then be entitled to the proceeds of the
debt. A charge over receivables should confer on the chargee
power to convert it into a mortgage and should therefore
contain a power of attorney to the chargee to execute an
assignment in the name of the chargor.
Priority
It is possible for a number of people to have taken security
over the same debt. The rules as to who takes priority will
depend on whether or not the claimants have notice of the
security taken before theirs.
-
Claimant has no notice
Between all permutations of legal assignees and equitable
assignees, priority is governed by the date notice is given
to the debtor, regardless of the time that the assignment was
actually made.38 Here, it is only necessary that the second
chargee has no notice of the first charge at the time of
creation of the second charge. It is irrelevant if he has
notice of the first charge at the date he notifies the
debtor.39 Where neither party has given notice, the charge
created first in time has priority.
The rules as to priority between a legal or equitable
assignee and a mere chargee are still unclear. It is possible
that it will be governed by the date of notice to the debtor.
However, the better view is that priority is governed by the
date of creation of the competing interests.
The rules as to priority between two mere chargees are
also unclear. It is thought here also that the better view is
that the priority will be governed by the date of creation of
the charges.
-
Claimant has notice
If a chargee or mortgagee has actual and constructive
notice of a prior interest, he will take subject to that
prior interest.
-
Freedom of dealing
Where there is a floating charge, priority may be affected
by the terms of the charge itself.
If the floating charge permits the debtor to remove debts
from the scope of the floating charge, then prior to
crystallisation, any assignees of debts will take priority to
the chargee.
Often, however, there is a prohibition in the charge on
the creation of further charges having priority to a floating
charge. Whether a party with a subsequent interest will take
subject to this floating charge will then depend on whether
they have actual notice.
RECHARACTERISATION OF FIXED AND FLOATING CHARGES
Book debts
Before Spectrum Plus Limited v National Westminster Bank
plc40, it had been judicially accepted that, in
the right circumstances, a fixed charge may be created over
book debts. This comes from Siebe Gorman & Co v
Barclays Bank Ltd41. Similar decisions
were reached in Re Keenan Bros Ltd42 and in
Oakdale (Richmond) Ltd v National Westminster Bank
plc43. Siebe Gorman was approved and
followed in the Court of Appeal in National Westminster
Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd44. Given
the rationale employed by the court in Siebe Gorman,
the court categorised a charge as floating if the company could
use the proceeds of book debts without the consent of the
chargee. This logic was used to reach that very result in
Re Brightlife Ltd45.
In Re New Bullas Trading Ltd46 the Court
of Appeal recognised a third option open to the court in such
cases - that is to find that the charge on book debts is,
in fact, a divisible one, which can be both fixed and floating.
The Court of Appeal were prepared to see two assets (one a
debt; the other its proceeds) and so were able to accept that
one could be subject to one type of charge and one another.
Nourse LJ said that was how the parties had labelled the
charges and that the court's interpretation that there were
two assets allowed the court to respect the parties'
wishes. The approach has been criticised by academics, for
example, Goode, Charges Over Book...
To continue reading
Request your trial