July-December 2016
ISSN 2050-005X (Online); 978-1535124478 (ISBN-13); 1535124474 (ISBN-10)
This is a review of the current and on-going controversial scope of retention of title clauses, drawn from a detailed analysis of case law and academic commentary. Provided is a clear summary of the various types of retention of title clauses, the origins of those clauses, and the academic debate that has surrounded each of the clauses. Further, it details the current position of each type of clause, drawing on links between traditional Commercial Law and cases in the Law of Restitution; to draw a conclusion that the retention of title clause is theoretically now certain.
Keywords: Romalpa, retention of title clauses, mixed goods clauses, commercial law, proceeds of sale clauses, all monies clauses.
2. This type of tracing – retrieving the goods from others—comes from the case of Re Hallett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch D 696.
3. The ability to ‘have priority over all other creditors’ under an RoT clause is permitted under the Insolvency Act 1986, s251.
4. Professor Goode, The Times, 11 May 1977 – ‘it is doubtful whether any case decided this century has created a greater impact on the commercial law’.
5. See: Sale of Goods Act 1979, s17 & 19.
6. Per Staughton J in Hendy Lennox Ltd v Grahame Puttick Engines Ltd [1984] 2 All ER 152, [1984] 1 WLR 485. The case law has also been described as ‘difficult’, see McKendrick, E, Contract Law: text, cases, and materials 5th ed. UK, OUP, 2012.
7. Clough Mill Ltd v Geoffrey Martin [1984] 3 All ER 982, [1985] 1 WLR 111, CA.
8. Millet LJ, Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1, a fiduciary is ‘someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter, in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence’.
9. Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56, per Lord Oliver, 92. See also A Diamond, The Reform of the Law of Security Interests [1988] CLP.
10. Companies Act 1948, s95 requires charges to be registered, or makes them void. Further, the Companies Act 2006, ss860 & 861 lists charges which must be registered.
11. Although some academics argue that there is not a total failure of consideration.
12. The Sale of Goods Act 1979, s2(1) defines a contract of sale of goods as.
13. This case was also affirmed by the House of Lords in Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG [1990] 3 All ER 481.
14. See further, R Bradgate, Retention of Title in the House of Lords: Unanswered Questions.
15. W Goodhart, Clough Mill Ltd v Martin – A Comeback for Romalpa? [1986] 49 MLR 98.
16. P Atiyah, J Adams & H MacQueen, Atiyah’s Sale of Goods.
17. This was the view taken by the judges in the cases of Re Bond Worth Ltd.
18. W Goodhart, Clough Mill Ltd v Martin – A Comeback for Romalpa? [1986] 49 MLR 102.
19. Compaq Computers Ltd v Abercorn Group Ltd [1991] BCC 484.
20. The Insolvency Act 1986, s323(2), see also the Insolvency Rules 1986, Rule 4.90(2).
21. R Bradgate, Retention of Title in the House of Lords: Unanswered Questions.
22. See also the decisions in Tilley v Bownoti [1970] 1 KB 745 and Re Asplrnlric Wood Pavement Co (1885) 30 Ch D 216.
23. Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG [1990] 3 All ER 481 (Scottish case).
24. W Goodhart, Clough Mill Ltd v Martin – A Comeback for Romalpa? [1986] 49 MLR 96.
25. Re Peachdart Ltd [1984] Ch 131 (Ch). See also Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd.
26. E Baskind, G Osbourne, & L Roach, Commercial Law, UK, OUP, 2013.
27. See W Goodhart [1986] 49 MLR 96.
28. See R Bradgate, Commercial Law, 3rd ed, UK, LexisNexis UK, 2000.
29. Bradgate, R, Commercial Law, 3rd ed, UK, LexisNexis UK, 2000.
30. Indian Oil Corporation v Greenstone Shipping SA [1988] QB 345.
31. See Ian Chisolm [1994] BCC 96; RM Goode, Proprietary Rights and Insolvency in Sales Transactions.
32. Kruppstahl v Quittman [1982] ILRM 551.
33. D Keenan, Smith and Keenan’s Law for Business, 13th ed, UK, Pearson Longman, 2006.
34. Hendy Lennox (Industrial Engines) Ltd v Grahame Puttick Ltd [1984].
35. Aircool Installations v British Telecommunications PLC [1995].
36. See Christpu, 2013.
37. Whilst the question of whether an item is a fixture or not is often uncertain.
38. De Lacy notes the New Zealand case of Forest Products [1992] 3 NZLR 304.
39. Christpu, 2013 – equitable remedy discussion.
40. Bourbon-Select, C. (2005) JIBLR.
41. W Davies, Romalpa thirty years on – still an enigma?.
42. Compare Templeman LJ in Borden (UK) Ltd [1981] Ch 25.
43. Compaq Computers Ltd v Abercorn Group Ltd [1991] BCC 484.
44. Andrew Hicks, Retention of Title: Latest Developments [1992] JBL 398.
45. See Christpu 2013.
46. Which is to be ‘construed in the context of the whole agreement…’.
47. In Re Peachdart Ltd [1984], a proceeds clause was rejected.
48. Millet LJ, Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102.
49. Forsythe [1994] 1 All ER 851.
50. Fairfax Gerrard Holdings Ltd v Capital Bank PLC [2007] EWCA Civ 1226.
51. Highway Foods International Ltd v Harris [1995] 1 BCLC 209.
52. S Thomas, The Role of Authorization in Title Conflicts.
53. FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2365.
54. Ibid; see also M Bridge, Benjamin’s Sale of Goods.
55. Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992].
56. G McCormack, Registration of Company Charges (2005).
57. P Atiyah et al, Atiyah’s Sale of Goods.
58. Pfeiffer Weinkellerei v Arbuthnot Factors Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 150.
59. W Davies, Romalpa thirty years on.
60. Goff LJ in Clough Mill Ltd v Geoffrey Martin.
61. E McKendrick, Contract Law.
62. Kelry C.F. Loi, Quistclose trusts and Romalpa clauses.
63. Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1968] UKHL 4.
64. Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228.
65. Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74.
66. A Burrows, The Law of Restitution.
67. Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669.
68. Ibid.
69. R Bradgate, Commercial Law.
70. Associated Alloys Pty Ltd (Australian case).
71. Ibid.
72. Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Engineering (2000) 171 ALR 568.
† LLB, University of Reading; Tax Trainee at Smith & Williamson. 1 Aluminium Industrie Vaasen B.V. v Romalpa Aluminium [1976] 1 WLR 676
(2016). Retention of Title Clauses: A Key to the Romalpa Maze. Legal issues Journal, 4 (2), https://www.legalissuesjournal.com/article/04-02-12072016/
