References: [2006] EWHC 833 (Ch), Times 28-Jun-2006
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir Francis Ferris
Ratio: The bankrupt had been entitled to a valuable vehicle registration mark ‘AMR 1T’. He sold it to a creditor, the claimant to clear that debt. The trustee now said that the purported assignment was ineffective.
Held: ‘VRMs are assigned to vehicles, not to registered owners or other individuals. The Secretary of State has power to assign or re-assign a VRM under Section 23(2) but a vehicle owner cannot require him to do so. The only relevant right which a vehicle owner has in relation to the transfer of a VRM from one vehicle to another is to seek the exercise in his favour of the Secretary of State’s power under Section 26. ‘ The right was not a chose in action capable of assignment. Had he been entitled to the VRM, any assignment would have been an unlawful preference.
Statutes: Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 23 26, Insolvency Act 1986 340(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Distinguished – In re Fry ChD ([1946] Ch 312, [1946] 2 All ER 105)
A settlor executed a transfer of shares but failed to obtain the consent of the Treasury under the Regulations. The transferees argued that the testator had executed documents which were appropriate to the subject matter of the gift, namely the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 June 2019
Ref: 240438
The post Goel v Pick: ChD 12 Apr 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.