Abstract
This report looks into selected issues of English law on aircraft financing through the prism of the Cape Town Convention. There is no doubt that English law provided a creditor-friendly legal framework even before the implementation of the Cape Town Convention that treasured contractual freedom and facilitated the enforcement of both security and “quasi-security” interests. The report analyses the pre-Cape Town Convention legal framework and examines how it fits into the provisions of the Convention that was recently implemented into English law.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The Law Society of England and Wales, “England and Wales: the jurisdiction of choice. Dispute Resolution” (2007).
- 2.
Ibid., p. 5 per the RT Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (as he then was).
- 3.
Ibid.
- 4.
Ibid., p. 8.
- 5.
The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 and the Insurance Act 2015 are the most important amendments of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 since its enactment.
- 6.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment. Government Response to the Call for Evidence (2013), at [3.19].
- 7.
SI 2015/912.
- 8.
A comprehensive analysis of this area of English law is outside the scope of this report.
- 9.
E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), p. 660.
- 10.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [1.01].
- 11.
For references see E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), p. 660, note 45.
- 12.
With the exception of two voluntary schemes of registration which are irrelevant for the purposes of this report.
- 13.
See E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), pp. 717–718.
- 14.
The Law Commission of England and Wales, Company Security Interests. A Consultative Report (2004), at [1.10].
- 15.
Ibid., at [2.96].
- 16.
For English case law and analysis on the issue of characterisation see H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [4.13]ff and M Bridge, L Gullifer, G McMeel, S Worthington, The Law of Personal Property (2013), at [7–102] ff.
- 17.
See below under “Registration or Registrations?”.
- 18.
Reg. 6(1) The International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Ibid.
- 21.
See H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [7.28] for analysis and case law on what a true option to purchase is.
- 22.
The characterisation of a structure as a hire-purchase or a conditional sale is also important for the application of s. 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. A buyer under a conditional sale agreement will be a “buyer in possession” under the Act, whereas a hirer will not have this status until it exercises its option to purchase the aircraft. This distinction has implications for their respective rights vis-à-vis third parties: a buyer has the power to pass good title on the aircraft to a third party, whereas the hirer does not enjoy the same power unless it exercises the option to purchase. The said right of the buyer under a conditional sale agreement has been curtailed by statutory intervention, namely the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which essentially puts him in the position of a hirer with respect to passing title to a third party. Yet, the Act applies to transactions involving consumers and as such its importance in the context of the present report is limited.
- 23.
SSAP21 Accounting for Leases and Hire Purchase Contracts (1984). For that reason the aircraft is recorded on the balance sheet of the lessee, see D Mcclean (ed), Shawcross and Beaumont on Air law (2015), at IV[40].
- 24.
See H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [7.43]ff and E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), p.767 ff.
- 25.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [7.45].
- 26.
See D Hanley, Aircraft Operating Leasing: A Legal and Practical Analysis in the Context of Public and Private International Air Law (2012), Ch. 2 and Celestial Aviation Trading 71 Limited v Paramount Airways Private Ltd [2010] EWHC 185 (Comm), [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 259, [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 9.
- 27.
Celestial Aviation Trading 71 Limited v Paramount Airways Private Ltd [2010] EWHC 185 (Comm), [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 259, [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 9, at [54].
- 28.
Ibid.
- 29.
Regs. 6(1), 10 and Schedule 3 of The International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015, Art. 16(a) of the Cape Town Convention.
- 30.
E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), pp. 692–693 with notes omitted.
- 31.
See Arts 1 and 4 of the Mortgaging of Aircraft Order 1972, SI 1972/1268.
- 32.
Art. 3. Registration of a mortgage under the Order is not compulsory. Yet, the draconian effect of non-registration on its priority makes registration de facto compulsory. A mortgage over a non-UK registered aircraft “remains possible in law”, yet it will not be subject to the Order that will inevitably impair its priority in D Mcclean (ed), Shawcross and Beaumont on Air law (2015), at IV[46].
- 33.
Art. 2(2) and 4(1). The term “charge” in the Order is used to “include charge ‘within mortgage’” in H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [14–51].
- 34.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [14–51].
- 35.
J Edmunds, “Mortgages of Aircraft” in I Davies (ed), Security Interests in Mobile Equipment (2002), p. 145, 148.
- 36.
Ibid., p. 152.
- 37.
Art. 14(1).
- 38.
Art. 13.
- 39.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [14–59].
- 40.
Art. 17.
- 41.
Art. 18(1).
- 42.
Art. 18(2)(a).
- 43.
Art. 14(1).
- 44.
Art. 14(2).
- 45.
Art. 5(1).
- 46.
Art. 14(2)(ii).
- 47.
Art. 14(2)(ii).
- 48.
Art. 14(4).
- 49.
Such as the fleet liens the CAA enjoys for unpaid route charges under s. 83 of the Transport Act 2000 and certain airports enjoy for unpaid charges under s. 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. See also Global Knafaim Leasing Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority [2010] EWHC 1348 (Admin), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 324.
- 50.
Art. 14(5).
- 51.
The Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 25) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/600, repealed ss. 860 to 892 of the Companies Act 2006 and replaced them with ss. 859A to 859Q. Relevant interests created on or after 1 April 2013 are governed by the new regime, with interests created before that day governed by the old regime.
- 52.
s. 859H(3) of the post-2013 registration scheme and s. 874 of the pre-2013 registration scheme.
- 53.
For the list of charges see s. 860(7) Companies Act 2006 which includes the following: (a) a charge on land or any interest in land, other than a charge for any rent or other periodical sum issuing out of land; (b)a charge created or evidenced by an instrument which, if executed by an individual, would require registration as a bill of sale; (c)a charge for the purposes of securing any issue of debentures; (d)a charge on uncalled share capital of the company;(e)a charge on calls made but not paid; (f)a charge on book debts of the company; (g)a floating charge on the company’s property or undertaking; (h)a charge on a ship or aircraft, or any share in a ship [emphasis added]; (i)a charge on goodwill or on any intellectual property.
- 54.
s. 859A (1) Companies Act 2006.
- 55.
s. 859A (7) Companies Act 2006 provides that a “charge includes a mortgage; a standard security; assignation in security, and any other right in security constituted under the law of Scotland, including any heritable security, but not including a pledge”.
- 56.
The exceptions in s. 859A(6) are the following: a charge in favour of a landlord on a cash deposit given as a security in connection with the lease of land; a charge created by a member of Lloyd’s [within the meaning of the Lloyd’s Act 1982(3)] to secure its obligations in connection with its underwriting business at Lloyd’s; and a charge excluded from the application of this section by or under any other Act.
- 57.
s. 870 Companies Act 2006.
- 58.
s. 860 (4) – (6) Companies Act 2006.
- 59.
s. 874 Companies Act 2006.
- 60.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [10–32].
- 61.
M Bridge, L Gullifer, G McMeel, S Worthington, The Law of Personal Property (2013), at [14–090].
- 62.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [14–57]. The provisions of the Companies Act on the Register of Companies Charges, unlike the Mortgaging of Aircraft Order 1972, do not contain an express provision on constructive notice. In a case where the interest is registered in the Register of Companies Charges but not in the Register of Aircraft Mortgages the answer to the question whether a bona fide buyer of the aircraft is bound by the interest depends on the effect of registration: does the registration provide constructive notice to all the world or only to those who were reasonably expected to search the Register of Companies Charges. The prevailing view is the latter which means that the answer will depend on whether it is expected from the buyer in question to search the Register of Companies Charges. For a thorough analysis of constructive notice in the context of the Register of Companies Charges see H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [12.04]ff. For the position under the Register of Aircraft Mortgages see above note 33.
- 63.
Ibid., at [14.58].
- 64.
Ibid.
- 65.
See Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, “Call for evidence: full list of responses. Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment” (2010), especially the response of Machins Solicitors.
- 66.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, “The International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015. Draft Guidance” (2015), at [25].
- 67.
White & Case, “UK Ratification of the Cape Town Convention” (2015) available at http://www.whitecase.com/publications/article/uk-ratification-cape-town-convention (last accessed 23 March 2016).
- 68.
Ibid.
- 69.
S Saidova, “The Cape Town Convention: repossession and sale of charged aircraft objects in a commercially reasonable manner” [2013] LMCLQ 180, 193.
- 70.
Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc [1993] 2 All ER 481,486 per Sir Donald Nicholls VC endorsing the opinion of Lord Templeman in China and South Sea Bank Ltd v Tan [1989] 3 All ER 839, 842.
- 71.
Western Bank Ltd v Kurt Schindler [1976] 2 All ER 393, 396 per Buckley LJ endorsing Four-Maids Limited v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Limited [1957] 2 All ER 35, [1957] Ch 317.
- 72.
M Bridge, L Gullifer, G McMeel, S Worthington, The Law of Personal Property (2013), at [18–007].
- 73.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [18.33] with references to relevant case law.
- 74.
E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), p. 680.
- 75.
Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1409, [2004] 4 All ER 484, at [13] per Lightman J.
- 76.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [18.39].
- 77.
Ibid., at [18.42] with references to case law.
- 78.
E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), p. 681.
- 79.
The prevailing opinion is that ss. 101 ff apply to personal property courtesy of s. 205(1)(xx).
- 80.
Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1409, [2004] 4 All ER 484, at [14] per Lightman J.
- 81.
Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation [1993] 3 All ER 626, 637 per Lord Templeman endorsing Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 633 and being endorsed by Yorkshire Bank Plc v Hall [1999] 1 WLR 1713 and Den Norske Bank ASA v Acemex Management Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1559.
- 82.
Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 633, 646 per Salmon LJ.
- 83.
Michael and others v Miller and others [2004] EWCA Civ 282, at [132] per Parker LJ.
- 84.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [18.50].
- 85.
Farrar v Farrars Ltd [1888] 40 Ch D 395.
- 86.
Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] 3 All ER 54, 59 per Lord Templeman.
- 87.
Australia and New Zealand Banking v Bangadilly (1978) 139 CLR 195, 201 per Jacobs.
- 88.
E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), p. 682.
- 89.
M Bridge, L Gullifer, G McMeel, S Worthington, The Law of Personal Property (2013), at [18–22].
- 90.
English law is also prepared to implement Art. IX of the Aircraft Protocol. Both the remedy of de-registration of the aircraft under a power of attorney and its export outside the jurisdiction were remedies already available under English law and according to one commentator exercised without problems, see P. Farrell, “England and Wales” in B. Crans and R. Nath (eds), Aircraft repossession and enforcement. Practical Issues (2009), p. 285, 324 ff.
- 91.
Reg. 19 of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 92.
Reg. 19(6) and (7) of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 93.
Reg. 24 of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 94.
S Saidova, “The Cape Town Convention: repossession and sale of charged aircraft objects in a commercially reasonable manner” [2013] LMCLQ 180, 194. The author provides an illuminating analysis on the implications of the requirement of “commercial reasonableness” both domestically and at an international level.
- 95.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [19.09] on conditional sales. The authors make similar statements at [19.23] on hire purchase and at [19.30] on finance lease.
- 96.
Ibid., at [19.32] note 220.
- 97.
Ibid., at [19.31].
- 98.
Ibid., at [7.29] on conditional sale; at [7.38] on hire-purchases; and at [7.50] on finance leases.
- 99.
Ibid., at [19.16] on conditional sales; at [19.28] on hire-purchases; and at [19.38] on finance leases.
- 100.
Reg. 21 of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 101.
Reg. 18 of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 102.
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Contract (5th edn, 2012), Vol 22, at [213] it is also stated that “the courts have sometimes intervened by way of the classification of terms, and by their interpretation of the parties’ agreement, or the implication of terms…In addition, [they have employed equity rules, such as] promissory estoppel, specific performance, injunction, undue influence and the notion of unconscionable bargains”.
- 103.
[2001] EWCA Civ 317, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696, at [55].
- 104.
Lombard North Central plc v Butterworth [1987] 1 All ER 267 with references in p 272 to cases that go back to 1876.
- 105.
H Beale (ed), Chitty on Contracts (31st edn, 2013), at [22–048]. As to what constitutes a repudiatory breach, Professor Peel recently provided a brief analysis that fits well into our discussion: “As a matter of general law, a contract may be terminated in the following circumstances: (i) where the defendant is guilty of renunciation; (ii) where the defendant is guilty of a substantial failure to perform; and (iii) where the defendant is guilty of a breach of condition. A little elaboration is called for in relation to each of these circumstances and it is helpful to start with the last of them. The designation of a term as a condition must be understood in the context of the tripartite classification of the terms of a contract into conditions, warranties and innominate (or intermediate) terms. A condition is a term of the contract which, if breached, entitles the innocent party to terminate the contract. A warranty is a term of the contract which, if breached, entitles the party only to damages and not to terminate the contract. An innominate (or intermediate) term, as the name suggests, is neither a condition nor a warranty. Whether, if breached, it entitles the innocent party to terminate the contract depends upon the seriousness of the breach. It is in relation to innominate terms, therefore, that the right to terminate accrues on the basis of a substantial failure to perform. By contrast, there is no requirement that a breach of condition should also amount to a substantial failure to perform; all that is required for the right to terminate is that the term should amount to a condition and that it should have been breached. A term of a contract may be a condition as a result of legislation, or judicial precedent, or by express or implied agreement of the parties…As for substantial failure to perform, it is often captured by a number of differently formulated tests: did the breach go to the root of the contract; did it substantially deprive the innocent party of what he bargained for; did it frustrate his purpose in making the contract? In simple terms, the question to be asked is whether the breach was sufficiently serious to justify termination of the contract. It is the breach and its effects which are relevant; not the nature of the term broken. Whether the breach reaches the necessary threshold is often a question of ‘very great difficulty’. The defendant is guilty of renunciation where he has demonstrated by his words or conduct his intention not to perform the contract, either at all, or in some respect which goes to the root of the contract. It is clear that renunciation and substantial failure to perform can overlap, since the conduct upon which a plea of renunciation may be based is a failure to perform obligations which have already fallen for performance. But renunciation may also be relied upon to terminate on the basis of an entirely anticipatory breach, ie before the time for performance…[A]ll three bases of termination under the general law will be referred to…as termination for a ‘repudiatory breach’” in E Peel, “The termination paradox” [2013] LMCLQ 519, 520–521. How English law on repudiatory breach is going to fit into Art. 11(2) of the Cape Town Convention which speaks of “substantial deprivation” will be a matter for consideration. The “substantial failure to perform” seems to be its equivalent from an English law perspective, with the two notions being conceptually close. Yet, the question remains whether renunciation and breach of condition will be good enough reasons to trigger default in the absence of express contractual provisions; with the breach of condition arguably qualifying as such.
- 106.
E Peel, “The termination paradox” [2013] LMCLQ 519, 522.
- 107.
H. Beale (ed), Chitty on Contracts (31st edn, 2013), at [22–048] with analysis on the implications of having both running in parallel.
- 108.
Rice (T/A the Garden Guardian) v Great Yarmouth Borough Council 2000 WL 823961 endorsed by Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd v Debenham Properties Ltd [2010] EWHC 1193 (Ch) and H. Beale (ed), Chitty on Contracts (31st edn, 2013), at [22–048].
- 109.
Looney v Trafigura Beheer BV [2011] EWHC 125 (Ch), [2011] All E.R. (D) 17 (Feb) with comments in H Beale (ed), Chitty on Contracts (31st edn, 2013), at [22–048].
- 110.
Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd v Debenham Properties Ltd [2010] EWHC 1193 (Ch) at [32] per Kitchin J.
- 111.
Antaios Cia Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (The Antaios) [1985] AC 191, 201 per Lord Diplock.
- 112.
In Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [1995] 1 EGLR 97 Hofmann LJ (as he then was) delivered a strong statement to that effect at p. 99: “[t]his robust declaration does not, however, mean that one can rewrite the language which the parties have used in order to make the contract conform to business common sense. But language is a very flexible instrument and, if it is capable of more than one construction, one chooses that which seems most likely to give effect to the commercial purpose of the agreement”.
- 113.
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, [2012] 1 All ER 1137, at [23] per Lord Clarke.
- 114.
Ibid., at [14].
- 115.
Reg 24 of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 116.
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 095, 21/04/1993.p. 29.
- 117.
s 1(1).
- 118.
s. 2(3).
- 119.
s. 62(4).
- 120.
ss. 1(3) and 14.
- 121.
s. 11(1). The Act also provides in its Schedule 2 guidelines for the application of the reasonableness test.
- 122.
s. 2.
- 123.
ss. 3, 6, 7.
- 124.
s. 13(1) provides that the Act prevents “(a)making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions; (b)excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy; (c)excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure”. For case law on application of s. 13(1) see H Beale (ed), Chitty on Contracts (31st edn, 2013), at [14–062].
- 125.
Granville Oil & Chemicals Ltd v Davis Turner & Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 570, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 819, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 356 at [31] per Tuckey LJ.
- 126.
J. Poole, Contract Law (11th edn, 2012), p.288.
- 127.
s. 26(1), (3).
- 128.
s. 26(4).
- 129.
[2009] EWCA Civ 290.
- 130.
Ibid., at [25] per Moore-Bick LJ.
- 131.
Ibid., at [28].
- 132.
Ibid., at [32]
- 133.
E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), p. 907.
- 134.
P. Farrell, “England and Wales” in B. Crans and R. Nath (eds), Aircraft repossession and enforcement. Practical Issues (2009), p. 285, 310.
- 135.
H Beale, M Bridge, L Gullifer, E Lomnicka, The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing (2nd edn, 2012), at [10–32].
- 136.
Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1, s. 43(2). The Act defines security interests to include “any mortgage, charge, lien or other security” in s. 248.
- 137.
Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1, s. 43(3). The Act speaks of hire-purchase agreements, but for the purposes of administration they are defined broadly to include conditional sale agreements, a chattel leasing agreements and retention of title agreements in Schedule B1, s 101. In Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] Ch. 744 the Court of Appeal extended the application of this principle to the right of certain airport authorities to detain and sell aircraft for unpaid airport charges under s. 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
- 138.
M Bridge, L Gullifer, G McMeel, S Worthington, The Law of Personal Property (2013), at [38–036] with references to case law.
- 139.
Ibid., at [38–037] with references to case law.
- 140.
P. Farrell, “England and Wales” in B. Crans and R. Nath (eds), Aircraft repossession and enforcement. Practical Issues (2009), p. 285, 310.
- 141.
Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] Ch. 744, 758.
- 142.
Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1, ss.70–72.
- 143.
Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1, ss. 71(2)(b) for security interests and 72(2)(b) for “quasi-security” interests.
- 144.
Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1, ss. 71(3)(a) for security interests and 72(3)(a) for “quasi-security” interests.
- 145.
Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1, ss. 71(3)(b) for security interests and 72(3)(b) for “quasi-security” interests.
- 146.
s. 144(1).
- 147.
s. 143(1).
- 148.
The now repealed Art. 15 of the Mortgaging of Aircraft Order 1972 provided that “[a] registered mortgage of an aircraft shall not be affected by any act of bankruptcy committed by the mortgagor after the date on which the mortgage is registered…”. The same result is now achieved by s. 285(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
- 149.
E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law (4th edn, 2010), pp. 908–909.
- 150.
P. Farrell, “England and Wales” in B. Crans and R. Nath (eds), Aircraft repossession and enforcement. Practical Issues (2009), p. 285, 311.
- 151.
J Cameron and R Walton, “Take Off: British Airways’ issuance of EETC” (2013) JIBFL 576, 577.
- 152.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills, “Ratification of the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment. Consultation on Options for Implementation” (2014), at [76].
- 153.
Reg. 37 of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 154.
Reg. 22 of the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015.
- 155.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills, “Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment. Government Response to the Call for Evidence” (2013), at [3.17].
- 156.
Ibid., at [3.19].
References
Beale, H., M. Bridge, L. Gullifer, and E. Lomnicka. 2012. The law of security and title-based financing, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beale, H. (ed), 2013. Chitty on contracts, 31st ed. Sweet & Maxwell.
Bridge, M., L. Gullifer, G. McMeel, and S. Worthington. 2013. The law of personal property. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Cameron, J., and R. Walton. 2013. Take off: British airways’ issuance of EETC. JIBFL 576, 577.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills. 2013. Convention on international interests in mobile equipment and protocol thereto on matters specific to aircraft equipment. Government response to the call for evidence.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills. 2014. Ratification of the convention on international interests in mobile equipment and protocol thereto on matters specific to aircraft equipment. Consultation on options for implementation.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2015. The international interests in aircraft equipment (Cape Town Convention) regulations 2015. Draft guidance.
Edmunds, J. 2002. Mortgages of aircraft. In Security interests in mobile equipment, ed. I. Davies, 145, 152–153. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Farrell, P. 2009. England and Wales. In Aircraft repossession and enforcement. Practical issues, eds. B. Crans and R. Nath, 285. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer
Halsbury’s Laws of England. 2012. Contract, 5th edn, Vol 22.
Hanley, D. 2012. Aircraft operating leasing: A legal and practical analysis in the context of public and private international air law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
The Law Commission of England and Wales. 2004. Company security interests. A consultative report.
The Law Society of England and Wales. 2007. England and Wales: The jurisdiction of choice. Dispute Resolution.
Mcclean, D. (ed.). 2015. Shawcross and Beaumont on Air law. London: Butterworth.
McKendrick, E. 2010. Goode on commercial law, 4th edn. London: Penguin.
Peel, E. 2013. The termination paradox, LMCLQ 519.
Poole, J. 2012. Contract law, 11th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Saidova, S. 2013. The Cape Town Convention: repossession and sale of charged aircraft objects in a commercially reasonable manner. LMCLQ 180.
White & Case. 2015. UK Ratification of the Cape Town Convention. Available at http://www.whitecase.com/publications/article/uk-ratification-cape-town-convention.
Cases
Antaios Cia Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (The Antaios) [1985] AC 191.
Australia and New Zealand Banking v Bangadilly (1978) 139 CLR 195.
Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] Ch. 744.
Celestial Aviation Trading 71 Limited v Paramount Airways Private Ltd [2010] EWHC 185 (Comm), [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 259, [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 9.
China and South Sea Bank Ltd v Tan [1989] 3 All ER 839.
Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [1995] 1 EGLR 97.
Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 633.
Den Norske Bank ASA v Acemex Management Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1559.
Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd v Debenham Properties Ltd [2010] EWHC 1193 (Ch).
Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation [1993] 3 All ER 626.
Farrar v Farrars Ltd [1888] 40 Ch D 395.
Four-Maids Limited v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Limited [1957] 2 All ER 35, [1957] Ch 317.
Global Knafaim Leasing Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority [2010] EWHC 1348 (Admin), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 324.
Granville Oil & Chemicals Ltd v Davis Turner & Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 570, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 819, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 356.
Lombard North Central plc v Butterworth [1987] 1 All ER 267.
Looney v Trafigura Beheer BV [2011] EWHC 125 (Ch), [2011] All E.R. (D) 17 (Feb).
Michael and others v Miller and others [2004] EWCA Civ 282.
Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc [1993] 2 All ER 481.
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, [2012] 1 All ER 1137.
Rice (T/A the Garden Guardian) v Great Yarmouth Borough Council 2000 WL 823961.
Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1409, [2004] 4 All ER 484.
Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Limited v First Flight Couriers Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 290.
Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] 3 All ER 54.
Western Bank Ltd v Kurt Schindler [1976] 2 All ER 393.
Yorkshire Bank Plc v Hall [1999] 1 WLR 1713.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leloudas, G. (2017). The Law of England and Wales on Secured Transactions as Compared with the Cape Town Convention. In: Kozuka, S. (eds) Implementing the Cape Town Convention and the Domestic Laws on Secured Transactions. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46470-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46470-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46468-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46470-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)