Palmer v Carey [1926] UKPCHCA 1

The agreement did not constitute an equitable assignment or create a charge, security, or property interest in the goods or proceeds in favour of the lender; it only determined distribution of profits after sale, and imposed no obligation to pay the debt out of a specific fund.

Parties: Appellant: William Harrington Palmer; Respondent: Carey
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 19 April 1926
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Appeal From the High Court to the Privy Council
Outcome: Appeal allowed; order of trial Judge restored with costs before the High Court of Australia and before the Privy Council
Legal Topics: Equitable Assignment, Security Interests, Bills of Sale

Commercial Law Bankruptcy Equitable Assignment Security Interests Bills of Sale

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

William Harrington Palmer

Appellant

Carey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the High Court to the Privy Council

Legal Issues

1 Whether the agreement of 30 April 1917 constituted an equitable assignment giving a security, lien or charge over goods or proceeds of sale
2 Consequences of failure to register the agreement under the Bills of Sale Acts

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of trial Judge restored with costs before the High Court of Australia and before the Privy Council

Orders

Order of the trial Judge of 19th December 1923 restored
Costs awarded to appellant before the High Court of Australia and before the Privy Council