Powdrill v Watson

Powdrill v Watson [1995] 2 AC 394 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.

Powdrill v Watson
CourtHouse of Lords
Full case namePowdrill v Watson, Talbot v Cadge
Citation(s)[1995] 2 AC 394, [1995] 2 WLR 312
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Keith, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd
Keywords
Administration

Facts

Roger Powdrill was a joint administrator of Paramount Airways Ltd, a short haul aircraft carrier. He wrote to all the employees in the company, including John Watson, saying that the company would keep on paying the employees but was not in any way assuming personal liability. This case was joined with cases where administrative receivers had done the same though making explicit they were not adopting the employee's contracts of employment. This included John Talbot who was in charge of both Leyland DAF Ltd and Ferranti International plc. Mr Watson’s contract was then terminated. He wanted to be paid for his work. He argued that he stood in priority under Insolvency Act 1986 section 19(5) (see now Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1) for wages over a two months’ notice period. In Talbot's case, he simply issued applications asking whether they had in fact adopted the contracts under the Insolvency Act 1986, section 44.

Evans-Lombe J in the High Court [1993] BCC 662 held the contracts were adopted. Dillon LJ, Leggatt LJ and Henry LJ in the Court of Appeal (reported at [1994] BCC 172) dismissed the appeals.

Judgment

Lord Browne-Wilkinson held that IA 1986 sections 19 and 44 meant that a contract was adopted where the administrator or receiver’s conduct amounted to an election to treat the contract as adopted. It was inevitably so after 14 days following appointment and could not be unilaterally avoided. Under section 19 priority was only given to liability on wages incurred by the administrator during his tenure in office, and that did include liability for the period of notice, but not holiday pay accruing before appointment.

Lord Keith, Lord Mustill and Lord Lloyd concurred.

gollark: People make that mistake, but I am not working for pizza companies doing subliminal advertising; that is not in any way what I am doing.
gollark: I finally got round to watching The Expanse (TV show) and it's very good, don't really know why I didn't earlier.
gollark: I don't think I even got that to work, and pins just moving around a bit and not doing much was not very encouraging.
gollark: I finally got round to getting one of those cheap Amazon lockpicking sets a while ago, but never managed to do anything with it despite *several* YouTube videos. So it's consigned to my random thing pile™ besides a pi 0 and some discarded lined paper.
gollark: Well, you know what they say: monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors.

See also
  • UK insolvency law

Notes

    References
    • L Sealy and S Worthington, Cases and Materials in Company Law (9th edn OUP 2010)
    • R Goode, Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law (4th edn Sweet & Maxwell 2011)
      This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.