Foamcrete (Uk) Ltd v Thrust Engineering Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 351 (21 December 2000)

Foamcrete (Uk) Ltd v Thrust Engineering Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 351 (21 December 2000)

The prohibition on assignment in the Principal Agreement did not apply to the debt under the Purchase of Stock agreement, and the antecedent floating charge created by the debenture vested a beneficial interest in the bank (and subsequently Foamcrete) that was not subject to the later prohibition. Therefore, Foamcrete was entitled to enforce the debt against Thrust Engineering.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 351
Parties
Appellant: Foamcrete (UK) Limited; Respondent: Thrust Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debts, Floating Charges, Prohibition on Assignment, Enforcement of Security Interests
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Contract Law Assignment of Debts Floating Charges Prohibition on Assignment Enforcement of 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Foamcrete (UK) Limited

Appellant

Thrust Engineering Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prohibition on assignment in the Principal Agreement prevented Foamcrete from enforcing the debt as assignee of the debenture
  2. 2 Whether the assignment of the debenture to Foamcrete was effective to vest title to sue for the balance of the purchase price

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on assignment in the Principal Agreement did not apply to the debt under the Purchase of Stock agreement, and the antecedent floating charge created by the debenture vested a beneficial interest in the bank (and subsequently Foamcrete) that was not subject to the later prohibition. Therefore, Foamcrete was entitled to enforce the debt against Thrust Engineering.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for Foamcrete in the sum of £19,670 inclusive of interest
  • Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and of the hearing below, subject to detailed assessment