Smith (as Administrator of Cosslett Contractors) v Bridgend County Borough Council
Series: Building Law Reports ; [2002] 4 BLR 160-173(14)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: HL 8 November 2001. S appealed against a CA ruling that a claim for damages brought by S on the grounds that B giving consent to the removal of plant from a site after C had gone into administration amounted to the tort of conversion had failed. "Held": the appeal was allowed, the judgement implying that the ICE Condition 5th ed. cl. 63 do not transfer title to the employer create a 'floating charge' that is ineffective unless registered under the Companies Act 1985 s395. the full judgement id given on the HL website at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011108/smith-1.htm.| Item type | Current library | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | 1 | Available | 118782-1001 |
HL 8 November 2001. S appealed against a CA ruling that a claim for damages brought by S on the grounds that B giving consent to the removal of plant from a site after C had gone into administration amounted to the tort of conversion had failed. "Held": the appeal was allowed, the judgement implying that the ICE Condition 5th ed. cl. 63 do not transfer title to the employer create a 'floating charge' that is ineffective unless registered under the Companies Act 1985 s395. the full judgement id given on the HL website at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011108/smith-1.htm.