This case stems from a patent case where the Respondent was successful. While the present case does not focus on the substantive question of patents, it renders the judgment in the first case as unenforceable. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by IMH Investments (the Respondent) that permitted the execution of their judgment against Trinidad Home Developers Limited (in voluntary liquidation) (the Appellant). The Appellant appealed to the Privy Council. This final appeal focused on whether the entry and registration of a judgment, obtained in favor of the Respondent following a patent dispute, can be deemed an execution in enforcing charges under the Remedies of Creditors Act. A key question was whether execution of the judgment was completed before the commencement of winding up of the Appellant’s company, and if not, whether the judgment creditor (the Respondent) would lose priority over other creditors. The Respondent registered its judgment for execution under the Remedies of Creditors Act, Chap. 8:09 (The Act). Following the voluntary liquidation of the Appellant’s company, the Respondent submitted an application to the liquidator for payment. The liquidator, however, stated that less than $3 million (Trinidad and Tobago currency) remained after payment of secured and preferential creditors. Further, the liquidator contended that the judgment secured by the Respondent was not properly registered, as the specified debt in the writ was in United States (US) dollars, while the order (at the time of registration) was for payment in Trinidad and Tobago dollars. The question on the currency was resolved by relying on Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443, where it was decided that the US dollars noted were simply a unit to account for the monies owed. In relying on the case of Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] 1 Ch 744, the Privy Council concluded that entry and registration of a judgment not only created the security over the land that the Respondent sought to have a charge against, but also counted as part of the process of execution. The judgment, however, was unenforceable, as Section 254 of the Act requires there to be completion of the execution of a judgment against a company prior to that company winding up. This was not done in the case of the Appellant; thus, the judgment won in the patent case became unenforceable.
Cases referred to (non-exhaustive):
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443
Trinidad Home Developers Ltd v IMH Investment Ltd (No 2)
In re Boyle, a Bankrupt (1853) 3 De G M & G 515
Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] 1 Ch 744