Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd

Re London Wine Co Ltd [1986] PCC 121 is an English trusts law case, concerning the necessity of ascertaining assets subject to a trust. It has been distinguished by Hunter v Moss,[1] and Re Harvard Securities Ltd,[2] and may not be consistent with the general policy of insolvency law as seen in Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe).

Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd
CourtHigh Court
Citation(s)[1986] PCC 121
Keywords
Trusts

Facts

Unsecured creditors of a bankrupt wine trading company, London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd, argued that they should be able to claim the bottles of wine they had paid for. The fine wine company had gone into receivership, and the remaining wine stock was a valuable asset. The bottles that the customers had bought had not yet been individually identified. The company had not even promised to provide wine from its current stocks.[3]

Judgment

Oliver J held that even if the company had said the wine was to come from current stocks, the trust would in any event have been uncertain. There could be no award for specific performance because the Sale of Goods Act required similarly that any goods be ascertained. In the course of his judgment, Oliver J said as follows.[4]

I appreciate the point taken that the subject matter is a part of a homogeneous mass so that specific identity is of as little as importance as it is, for instance, in the case of money. Nevertheless, as it seems to me, to create a trust it must be possible to ascertain with certainty not only what the interest of the beneficiary is to be but to what property it is to attach. I cannot see how, for instance, a farmers who declares himself to be a trustee of two sheep (without identifying them) can be said to have created a perfect and complete trust… And it would seem to me to be immaterial that at the time he has a flock of sheep out of which he could satisfy the interest.

Any alleged constructive or express trust of 50 bottles because the subject matter of the trust would be uncertain, at least until 50 specific bottles were set aside for the customers.

gollark: How much of my random traffic are these responsible for?
gollark: Wait a minute, some of these strings look like the random PHP-exploity stuff in my webserver logs.
gollark: Are routers *really* this insecure?!
gollark: Huh, if my guess based on just looking at what's in the code is right this makes it fire exploity HTTP requests at *other* devices, too.
gollark: How much of this is just random strings to mildly annoy people?

See also

Notes
  1. [1993] EWCA Civ 11
  2. [1997] EWHC Comm 371
  3. [1986] PCC 121
  4. [1986] PCC 121

References
      This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.