Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Insolvency Law

Expert guidance on all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency

Guildhall Chambers , 03 MAR 2015

D&D Wines; Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 215

D&D Wines; Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 215
(Court of Appeal, Patten, Lewison and Sharp LJJ, 07 March 2014)

Where an agent was entitled to collect monies, moneys paid to it after its insolvency were available for agent’s creditors generally and were not held on trust for the payor for transmission to the principal.

A company, D&D Wines, was the agent and distributor for the respondent, Angove. The agency agreement between Angove and D&D provided that Angove would, in respect of each sale, send an invoice to D&D for the price which named the end-purchaser as consignee. Angove would also issue a credit note which represented D&D’s commission. D&D would collect the moneys from the end-purchaser and pay to Angove the sum due under Angove’s invoice less the amount of the credit note. The termination clause in the agreement provided that termination of the agreement would not affect the accrued rights or remedies of either party. Shortly after D&D entered administration, Angove terminated the agency. Shortly thereafter D&D received substantial moneys from two end-customers.

The first instance judge held that because the agency agreement had been terminated at the time D&D received those moneys it had no right to them. The moneys were held on trust for the end-customers and were payable to Angove on their behalf.

The Court of Appeal rejected this analysis. On the true construction of the agency agreement D&D’s right to collect moneys from the end-customers for past sales survived the termination of the agency. The Court of Appeal also rejected Angove’s submission that there arose a constructive trust of the moneys because it was unconscionable for D&D’s liquidators to get the benefit of receiving the moneys but not be obliged to meet D&D’s obligations to Angove. Patten LJ said that it was hard to see how it could be unconscionable to receive payment under a subsisting contract notwithstanding the supervening insolvency. This case was distinguishable from Neste Oy v Lloyds Bank [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 658 since in that case the payment held subject to a constructive trust had been essentially gratuitous.
Guildhall Chambers
Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports

Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports

"BPIR is an excellent series, of interest to both corporate and personal insolvency lawyers,...

More Info from £166.00
Available in Insolvency Law Online
Individual Voluntary Arrangements

Individual Voluntary Arrangements

"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...

Available in Insolvency Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters