Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

The court held that the funds in court became an asset of MWP once the Court of Appeal ordered payment out, and that KHI's alleged fixed charge was rendered a floating charge by its acquiescence to payment into MWP's current account. The court must consider third party interests, but KHI's intervention was without merit and the alleged indebtedness was not substantiated. Accordingly, Mr Emmott was entitled to payment out under CPR Part 72.10.

Parties
Respondent (claimant): John Forster Emmott; Appellant (defendant): Michael Wilson & Partners Limited; Applicant (third Party): Kazholdings Incorporated (KHI)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Debt Orders, Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Security Interests
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Third Party Debt Orders Freezing Orders Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Security Interests

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Forster Emmott

Respondent (claimant)

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited

Appellant (defendant)

Kazholdings Incorporated (KHI)

Applicant (third Party)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR Part 72.10 entitles a judgment creditor to payment out of funds in court
  2. 2 Whether a fixed charge claimed by a third party (KHI) defeats the judgment creditor's claim
  3. 3 Whether the court must consider third party interests if not formally asserted

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the funds in court became an asset of MWP once the Court of Appeal ordered payment out, and that KHI's alleged fixed charge was rendered a floating charge by its acquiescence to payment into MWP's current account. The court must consider third party interests, but KHI's intervention was without merit and the alleged indebtedness was not substantiated. Accordingly, Mr Emmott was entitled to payment out under CPR Part 72.10.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of HHJ Waksman QC dated 3 February 2016 stands
  • Funds standing to the credit of MWP in court to be paid forthwith to Mr Emmott