BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Evans & Anor v Finance-U-Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1889 (25 October 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1889.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Civ 1889 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM CARDIFF CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE N CHAMBERS QC)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
EVANS & ANR |
Respondents |
|
- and - |
||
FINANCE-U-LIMITED |
Appellant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Tomlinson:
"It seems to me to be clear that when the first claimant became bankrupt there was a default under the bill of sale, and the defendant became entitled to seize the car.
20. I cannot see how it could be argued that, in the event of the defendant seizing the car, the agreement and rights under the bill of sale continue against the second claimant. Furthermore I cannot see how it could be argued that, in the event of the defendant not seizing the car, the agreement and the rights under the bill of sale continued against the second claimant. This is because, when the first claimant became bankrupt, there automatically became due and owing the sums calculated in the way set out in the bill of sale. That was the end of it. Both of the claimants were 'the grantor'. Both became liable for the sum due on bankruptcy. There could not be a different sum due from one claimant and another from the other."
Order: Application granted.