Buchler v Talbot [2004] UKHL 9 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of claims in a liquidation. Under English law at the time the expenses of liquidation took priority over the preferred creditors, and the preferred creditors took priority over the claims of the holder of a floating charge. However, a crystallised floating charge theoretically took priority over the liquidation expenses. Accordingly the courts had to try and reconcile the apparent triangular conflict between priorities.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Buchler v Talbot [2004] UKHL 9 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of claims in a liquidation. Under English law at the time the expenses of liquidation took priority over the preferred creditors, and the preferred creditors took priority over the claims of the holder of a floating charge. However, a crystallised floating charge theoretically took priority over the liquidation expenses. Accordingly the courts had to try and reconcile the apparent triangular conflict between priorities. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 38822960 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 5595 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1084073058 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:citations
  • [2004] 2 WLR 582 (en)
  • [2004] AC 298 (en)
  • [2004] BCC 214 (en)
  • [2004] UKHL 9 (en)
dbp:court
dbp:dateDecided
  • 2004-03-04 (xsd:date)
dbp:fullName
  • Re Leyland DAF Ltd or Buchler v Talbot (en)
dbp:judges
  • Lord Hoffmann (en)
  • Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (en)
  • Lord Millett (en)
  • Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (en)
  • Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (en)
dbp:keywords
  • Priority, administration expenses (en)
dbp:name
  • Buchler v Talbot (en)
dbp:opinions
  • (en)
  • Lord Hoffmann (en)
  • Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (en)
  • Lord Millett (en)
dbp:priorActions
  • [2002] EWCA Civ 228 (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
gold:hypernym
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Buchler v Talbot [2004] UKHL 9 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of claims in a liquidation. Under English law at the time the expenses of liquidation took priority over the preferred creditors, and the preferred creditors took priority over the claims of the holder of a floating charge. However, a crystallised floating charge theoretically took priority over the liquidation expenses. Accordingly the courts had to try and reconcile the apparent triangular conflict between priorities. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Buchler v Talbot (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License