UK: New Bullas Wrongly Decided!

Last Updated: 8 June 2001
Article by Andrew Evans

Executive Summary

The controversial Court of Appeal ruling in New Bullas of 1994 has been recently held by the Privy Council in the New Zealand case of Re Brumark Investments Ltd. to have been wrongly decided. Although decisions of the Privy Council are not binding they are of great persuasive authority. The effect of the decision is that an effective fixed charge on future book debts can only be obtained if the chargee bank ensures that the proceeds of such book debts are not at the company’s disposal by eg. requiring the proceeds to be paid into a blocked account.

It is possible for a company to create two kinds of charges over its assets, namely a fixed charge or a floating charge. Fixed charges tend to be created over a company’s fixed or permanent assets, whereas floating charges tend to be created over a company’s circulating assets like stock in trade. A fixed charge gives the chargee an immediate proprietary interest in the assets which are the subject of the charge which binds everyone into whose hands the assets come with notice of the charge. Unless it obtains the consent of the holder of the charge, the company is unable to deal with the assets which are subject to the fixed charge without breaching the terms of the charge. The floating charge was developed to enable the company to give effective security over its entire undertaking and assets from time to time which leaves the company free to deal with its assets and to pay trade credits in the ordinary course of business, unless and until the charge is enforced, eg. by the appointment of a receiver. One of the best descriptions of a floating charge was that given by Romer LJ in the 1903 case of In Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd in which he stated the following as being the three characteristics of a floating charge:

"(1)If it is a charge on a class of assets of a company present and future;

(2)If that class is one which, in the ordinary course of business of the company, would be changing from to time; and

(3)If you find that by the charge it is contemplated that, until some future step is taken by or on behalf of those interested in the charge, the company may carry on its business in the ordinary way as far as concerns the particular class of assets I am dealing with".

Of these three characteristics, the third is the most important and distinguishes a floating charge from a fixed charge. The existence of a fixed charge over all the assets of the company would make it impossible for the company to carry on business in the ordinary way without the consent of the charge holder, so that its ability to do so without the consent of the charge holder is inconsistent with the fixed nature of the charge.

The problem for banks and other lenders with the floating charge is that preferential creditors (such as wages of employees, PAYE and VAT) take priority to the bank’s security under the floating charge. By the 1970s the banks had become disillusioned with the floating charge, because of the growth in the extent and amount of the preferential debts and they therefore sought to extend the scope of their fixed charges. Whilst it had always been possible to take a fixed charge over specified existing debts, it was generally considered that it was not possible to take a fixed charge over a fluctuating class of present and future debts, because it was assumed that a charge over fluctuating assets had to be a floating charge.

In the landmark case of Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd -v- Barclays Bank Ltd of 1979, Mr Justice Slade held that a debenture which purported to give the bank a fixed charge on book debts and a floating charge over other assets created a valid fixed charge on the uncollected book debts and their proceeds. He came to this view, because the company was prohibited from disposing of the uncollected debts and although it was free to collect them it was required to pay the proceeds into an account in its name with the bank. He found that on a proper construction of the debenture, the company was not free to draw on the account without the consent of the bank even when it was in credit. He also found that the critical feature which distinguished a floating charge from a fixed charge was not the fluctuating character of the charged assets, but the company’s ability to deal with them in the ordinary course of business. Interestingly, the debenture in the Siebe Gorman case placed no restriction on the company’s right to draw on the account, which was the company’s ordinary bank account and the Judge’s finding that the company was not free to draw on the account without the consent of the bank is open to doubt.

This decision was followed by the Supreme Court of Ireland in the 1986 case of Re Keenan Bros Ltd. In this case, again the debenture prohibited the company from disposing of the book debts or creating other charges over them without the consent of the bank. It permitted the company to collect the book debts, but required it to pay the proceeds into a designated account with the bank from which the company was not permitted to make any withdrawals without the written consent of the bank. The critical feature which led the Court to characterise the charge on the book debts as a fixed charge was that the proceeds were to be segregated in a blocked account which would be frozen and rendered unusable by the company without the bank’s written consent.

The next landmark decision was the 1987 case of In Re Brightlife Ltd. In this case a company purported to create in favour of its bank a fixed charge over its present and future book debts and a floating charge over other assets. Although the company was not permitted to sell, factor or discount debts without the bank’s prior written consent, it was free to collect the debts and pay them into its ordinary bank account, although it was not required to do so. Mr Justice Hoffman held that although the charge was expressed to be a fixed charge, it should be characterised in law as a floating charge because the company was free to collect its debts and pay the proceeds into its bank account where they would be outside the charge over debts and therefore at the free disposal of the company. Mr Justice Hoffman said "in my judgment a right to deal in this way with the charged assets for its own account is a badge of a floating charge and is inconsistent with a fixed charge". Brightlife was followed by the 1994 New Zealand case of Supercool Refrigeration and Air Conditioning -v- Hoverd Industries Ltd which held that a restriction on charging or assigning the debts was not sufficient by itself to create a fixed charge and that (not following Slade J in Siebe Gorman) a requirement to pay the proceeds into the company’s account with the holder of the charge without any restriction on the company’s power to use the money in the account was insufficient to do so either. Brightlife was also followed by the 1998 case of In Re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd.

The need for a requirement that the company should pay the proceeds of its book debts into a bank account which the company maintained with the holder of the charge was not inconvenient either to the banks or their customers as this was what the company would in any event do. However, the banks did not want to monitor the bank account and be required to give their consent whenever the company wished to make a withdrawal. As Lord Millett said in Brumark "they wanted the best of both worlds. They wanted to have a fixed charge on book debts while allowing the company the same freedom to use the proceeds that it would have if a charge were a floating charge". There was a particular problem where the holder of the charge was not the chargor’s principal bankers, because in the normal course the proceeds of book debts would not be received by the charge holder, but by the chargor’s principal bankers.

To overcome this problem, the draftsman of the charge in the 1994 case of New Bullas Trading Limited set out deliberately to distinguish between the book debts and their proceeds by the debenture purporting to create two distinct charges, namely a fixed charge on the book debts while they remained uncollected and a floating charge on their proceeds. The proceeds of the book debts were not released from the fixed charge until they were actually paid into the company’s bank account. The intended effect of the New Bullas debenture was that until the charge holder intervened, the company would continue to collect the debts, though not to assign or factor them, and the debts, once collected, would cease to exist. The proceeds which then took their place would be a different asset which had never been subject to the fixed charge and would, from the outset, be subject to the floating charge.

The debenture in the Brumark case contained similar provisions to the New Bullas debenture.

The question which needed to be decided in New Bullas as in the Brumark case, was whether the book debts which were uncollected when the receivers were appointed were subject to a fixed charge or a floating charge. At first instance Knox J, following Brightlife, held that the book debts were subject to a floating charge, although his decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal where Nourse LJ gave the only judgment.

The main theme of the New Bullas judgment was that the parties were free to make whatever agreement they liked and the question was therefore simply a matter of construction.

In the Brumark case, their Lordships considered this approach to be fundamentally mistaken and that, whilst the Court would seek to gather the intentions of the parties from the language they have used, it is for the Court to decide upon the categorisation of the charge to see whether it in fact created a fixed or a floating charge.

Whilst their Lordships accepted that a debt and its proceeds are two separate assets, the latter were merely the traceable proceeds of the former and represented its entire value. The issue, however, for their Lordships was whether the debenture was so drafted that the company was at liberty to turn the uncollected book debts to account by its own act. They held that under the Brumark debenture, the company was left in control of the process by which the charged assets were extinguished and replaced by different assets which were not the subject of a fixed charge and were at the free disposal of the company. This their Lordships regarded to be inconsistent with the nature of a fixed charge and held that New Bullas was wrongly decided.

Their Lordships stated "to constitute a charge on book debts a fixed charge, it is sufficient to prohibit the company from realising the debts itself, whether by assignment or collection. If the company seeks permission to do so in respect of a particular debt, the charge holder can refuse permission or grant permission on terms, and can thus direct the application of the proceeds, but it is not necessary to go this far. As their Lordships have already noted, it is not inconsistent with the fixed nature of a charge on book debts for the holder of the charge to appoint the company its agent to collect the debts for its account on its behalf. Siebe Gorman and Re Keenan merely introduced an alternative mechanism for appropriating the proceeds to the security. The proceeds of debts collected by the company were no longer to be trust monies, but were required to be paid into a blocked account with the charge holder. The commercial effect was the same: the proceeds were not at the company’s disposal. Such an arrangement is inconsistent with the charge being a floating charge, since the debts are not available to the company as a source of its cashflow, but their Lordships would wish to make it clear that it is not enough to provide in the debenture that the account is a blocked account if it is not operated as one in fact".


Although the Brumark case is a Privy Council decision and is only persuasive rather than binding, it effectively lays to rest the New Bullas decision which has been heavily criticised by most academics. In future, the only way to obtain an effective charge over book debts will be to ensure that the proceeds of those book debts are not at the chargor company’s disposal. For a chargee bank it will not be sufficient merely to direct that the proceeds of the book debts are paid into a current account or deposit account held at that bank. Instead, the chargee bank will need to put in place a blocked account mechanism to ensure that the chargor company does not have access to the proceeds of the charged book debts without the bank’s consent. For a chargee bank, it will be very difficult to obtain an effective charge over future book debts where the proceeds of such debts are collected by a third party bank unless the charge expressly extends to balances held at other banks and contains a restriction on dealing with such proceeds which is agreed to and enforced by the third party bank. However, such an arrangement is likely to be commercially unacceptable to the chargor company as well as the third party bank.

Banks will need to consider amending their standard forms of debenture and procedures to ensure that the requisite control procedures concerning the proceeds of book debts are in place. They will also need to consider taking supplemental charges over book debts from existing customers where their current documentation or procedures are defective.

Another interesting possibility is that a preferential creditor (such as the Inland Revenue) might wish to fund a liquidator to bring an action for recovery of money paid under a mistake of law up to 6 years prior to the date of the Brumark judgment (per the 1998 case of Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Lincoln City Council) in relation to book debts collected by the receiver as agent of the chargor company and paid over to the chargee bank in the mistaken belief that the chargee bank had a fixed as opposed to a floating charge over such book debts.

This briefing paper is only intended as a general guide. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice in particular circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.