- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Agnew and Kevin James Bearsley v. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and Official Assignee for the estate in bankruptcy of Bruce William Birtwhistle and Mark Leslie Birtwhistle (New Zealand)
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A granted Company B a debenture dated 9 August 1995 purporting to create a fixed charge over its present and future book debts and a floating charge over other assets. Although the instrument described the book-debt charge as fixed, it allowed Company A to collect those debts and use the proceeds in the ordinary course of business unless and until the charge-holder intervened—something that never occurred. Company A later entered receivership; the only material assets were the proceeds of uncollected book debts subsequently realised by the receivers.
The receivers (the Appellants) asserted that the charge was fixed, which would entitle Company B to the proceeds. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and other preferential creditors (the Respondents) contended that, at the moment of creation, the charge was in law floating, so the proceeds belonged to them under New Zealand insolvency legislation. Judge Fisher at first instance held the charge to be fixed; the Court of Appeal reversed him. The Appellants appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose judgment—delivered by Judge Millett—forms the subject of this summary.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a charge over uncollected book debts that allows the company to collect those debts and use the proceeds freely is, in law, a fixed charge or a floating charge.
- Whether parties can, by drafting, validly separate book debts (subject to a fixed charge) from their proceeds (subject to a floating charge) so as to avoid the consequences attaching to a floating charge.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments (Receivers / Company B)
- The drafting of the debenture expressly created a fixed charge over uncollected book debts; contractual freedom should allow that intention to prevail.
- Any conversion of the fixed charge occurred automatically on collection, not “at the will” of Company A, so the charge remained fixed until payment.
- Precedent such as In re New Bullas Trading Ltd supported treating the charge on uncollected debts as fixed even though the proceeds floated.
Respondents' Arguments (Preferential Creditors)
- Substance, not labels, governs classification; because Company A could collect debts and deploy proceeds without restriction, the charge lacked the necessary control to be fixed.
- The attempt to split debts from their proceeds was commercially artificial and contrary to long-established authority distinguishing fixed from floating charges.
- In re New Bullas was wrongly decided and should not be followed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| In re New Bullas Trading Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 449 | Allowed parties to label uncollected debts as fixed and proceeds as floating. | Expressly overruled; held to be wrongly decided. |
| Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HL Cas 191 | Future property may be assigned in equity. | Historical backdrop enabling security over future book debts. |
| Tailby v Official Receiver (1888) 13 App Cas 523 | Confirmed assignability of future book debts. | Cited in tracing development of book-debt securities. |
| In re Panama, New Zealand & Australian Royal Mail Co (1870) 5 Ch App 318 | First recognition of floating charge; company free to trade. | Used to illustrate core characteristic of floating charges. |
| In re Florence Land & Public Works Co (1878) 10 Ch D 530 | Early endorsement of floating charge concept. | Part of historical survey. |
| In re Hamilton’s Windsor Ironworks Co (1879) 12 Ch D 707 | Same as above. | Historical context. |
| In re Colonial Trusts Corporation (1879) 15 Ch D 465 | Same as above. | Historical context. |
| Biggerstaff v Rowatt's Wharf Ltd [1896] 2 Ch 93 | Freedom to trade incompatible with fixed charge. | Cited in reasoning. |
| Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22 | Observed risks to unsecured creditors under floating charges. | Historical narrative. |
| Governments Stock & Other Securities Investment Co v Manila Railway Co [1897] AC 81 | Lord Macnaghten’s definition of floating charge. | Adopted as authoritative description. |
| In re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd [1903] 2 Ch D 284 | Three characteristics of a floating charge. | Key analytical test reaffirmed. |
| Illingworth v Houldsworth [1904] AC 355 | Freedom to collect debts indicates floating charge. | Applied directly to present facts. |
| In re London Pressed Hinge Co Ltd [1905] 1 Ch 576 | Criticised floating charge’s impact on trade creditors. | Cited historically. |
| In re General South American Co (1876) 2 Ch D 337 | Early criticism of floating charge mechanism. | Historical narrative. |
| Evans v Rival Granite Quarries Ltd [1910] 2 KB 979 | Classification depends on substance, not drafting. | Supported two-stage analytical approach. |
| Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 142 | Blocked-account arrangement can create fixed charge. | Distinguished; factual control absent here. |
| Hart v Barnes (1982) 7 ACLR 310 | Company free to use proceeds → floating charge. | Relied on to show importance of control. |
| Re Keenan Bros Ltd [1986] BCLC 242 | Blocked account with consent requirement deemed fixed charge. | Contrasted with present debenture that allowed free use. |
| In re Brightlife Ltd [1987] Ch 200 | Freedom to use proceeds inconsistent with fixed charge. | Followed in classifying current charge as floating. |
| Supercool Refrigeration & Air Conditioning v Hoverd Industries Ltd [1994] 3 NZLR 300 | Blocked account necessary for fixed charge. | Aligned with Brightlife; supported Respondents. |
| In re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd [1998] Ch 495 | Control test distinguishes fixed from floating. | Quoted to emphasise need for charge-holder control. |
| In re Welsh Irish Ferries Ltd [1986] Ch 471 | Lien on sub-freights considered registrable charge. | Used to dismiss analogies drawn by first-instance judge. |
| Itex Itagrani Export SA v Care Shipping Corp [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 316 | Same topic as above. | Same application. |
| Annangel Glory Compania Naviera SA v M Golodetz Ltd [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45 | Lien on sub-freights seen as floating charge. | Supported rejection of lien analogy. |
| Tagart, Beaton & Co v James Fisher & Sons [1903] 1 KB 391 | Nature of ship-owner’s lien on sub-freights. | Distinguished; not analogous to book-debt security. |
| The Nanfri [1979] AC 757 | Passing remark treating lien as equitable charge. | Discussed then discounted. |
| Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 | Licence/tenancy classification depends on substance. | Analogy for two-stage enquiry (construction then categorisation). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Board undertook a two-stage enquiry. First, it construed the debenture to determine the parties’ substantive rights: Company A could, without consent, collect book debts and use the proceeds. Second, applying established legal principles, it categorised the charge. Key steps were:
- Control test. A fixed charge requires the charge-holder to control the charged asset or its proceeds. Freedom for the company to withdraw value is “inconsistent with the nature of a fixed charge.”
- Separation of debts and proceeds illusory. While conceptually distinct assets, the value of a receivable lies wholly in its proceeds; attempting to label one fixed and the other floating is commercially artificial.
- Authority overrides drafting. From Yorkshire Woolcombers through Brightlife, cases show that the hallmark of a floating charge is the company’s ability to deal with assets in the ordinary course of business. The Board reaffirmed that labels chosen by the parties cannot displace this substantive test.
- Rejection of first-instance distinctions. Limiting alienation (e.g., assignment or factoring) is insufficient; unrestricted collection and use of proceeds likewise undermines any claim to a fixed charge.
- Express disapproval of New Bullas. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning in that case—based on contractual freedom and descriptive labels—was held to be “fundamentally mistaken” because it collapsed the vital distinction between fixed and floating charges.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The charge over Company A’s uncollected book debts was a floating charge at creation. Consequently, under New Zealand insolvency statutes, the realised proceeds are payable to preferential creditors (including the Commissioner of Inland Revenue) rather than to Company B. The Board’s express overruling of In re New Bullas Trading Ltd realigns New Zealand and United Kingdom jurisprudence, emphasising that control over both debts and their proceeds is indispensable to a fixed charge and that substance prevails over drafting ingenuity. No new form of security was created; instead, the decision reinforces existing doctrine and curtails attempts to evade preferential-creditor protections.
Alert