0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Prescribed part - second case denies creditors a second bite at the cherry

6 February 2008

Four weeks ago we reported on the case of Re Permacell Finesse Limited ("Permacell") (unreported) in which the High Court in Birmingham ruled on the availability to floating charge holders of the "prescribed part". Now in a second case, in the Matter of Airbase (UK) Limited [2008] EWHC 124(Ch) ("Airbase") the High Court in London has reached the same conclusion.

His Honour Judge Purle QC ruled in Permacell that section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986 operated as a departure from the general rule that secured creditors rank ahead of unsecured creditors. Floating charge holders were not entitled, the Judge said, to claw back any shortfall in their security from the fund created by the prescribed part. This was the quid pro quo for the advantage given to floating charge holders by the removal of the Crowns preferential status.

The Judge in Airbase, Mr Justice Patten, was already preparing his judgment on a similar point when he was handed a copy of the Permacell decision. Mr Justice Patten took the same approach as the Judge in Permacell but he dealt with fixed as well as floating charges because in Airbase there was a shortfall under both the fixed and floating charges.

Mr Justice Patten reflected on the 1982 Cork report which proposed that floating and fixed charge holders should be treated differently, in that the holder of fixed and floating charges should not participate with the unsecured creditors in the suggested portion (10) of net assets secured by the floating charge which is reserved and made available to them. The Cork committee recommended, however, that fixed charge holders should be entitled to participate in that fund to the extent of the unsecured balance.

This suggestion was not acted on by Parliament and, observed Mr Justice Patten, it is clear that no distinction is drawn in section 176A between floating and fixed charge holders. On the wording of the statute he rejected the banks argument that "unsecured debts" included the unsecured portion of a secured creditors claim. The prescribed part is held for the benefit of unsecured creditors alone and neither floating nor fixed charge holders can participate in respect of the unsecured portion of their claim.

Similar to the comments made by the Judge in Permacell, Mr Justice Patten held that the pari passu principle was fundamental but not immutable and is necessarily modified by section 176A.

The banks have decided not to appeal the Airbase decision.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Presenting a winding up petition to recover pandemic rent arrears

The government has now published new regulations to replace the winding up restrictions mentioned above from 1 October 2021. The key point of interest from a landlord and tenant perspective is that these new regulations will prevent a landlord from presenting a winding up petition to recover rent until 31 March 2022 where the sums are unpaid by the tenant because of the financial effect of the pandemic.


Legal updates

The government’s plans for dealing with Covid-19 rent arrears – some more details emerge

Last week, the government published a policy statement to deal with rent arrears accrued during the pandemic for those businesses affected by the pandemic.


Legal updates

Restrictions on landlords’ remedies extended again and extra protection to be given to certain businesses

The delay in the full easing of lockdown restrictions and the knock on effect for certain tenants (particularly those in the hospitality and entertainment industry) has clearly caused a change of heart and the government has now announced a further extension of the restrictions.


Legal updates

Commercial rents and Covid-19: Call for evidence

The government announced that it would be launching a call for evidence to help monitor the overall progress of negotiations between landlords and tenants for paying or writing off outstanding rents. This call for evidence has now been published.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up