Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984

Traditionally in the English conflict of laws, limitation statutes barring the plaintiff’s remedy have been treated as procedural and those extinguishing his right as substantive. Following on the Law Commission’s Report on Classification of Limitation in Private International Law (Law Com. No. 114, (1982) Cmnd. 8570), the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 now provides for all foreign limitation laws to be treated as substantive, however characterized by foreign law. The Act is critically reviewed by P.B. Carter in (1985) 101 L.Q.R. 68.

Dangerous Vessels Bill 1984

This Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in November 1984. Its purpose is to empower harbour masters to give directions to prohibit vessels from entering the areas of jurisdiction of their respective harbour authorities or to require the removal of vessels from those areas where those vessels present a grave and imminent danger to the safety of any person or property, or risk of obstruction to navigation. The Secretary of State would be empowered to countermand such directions. The term “vessel” is to include: seaplanes, hovercraft and other amphibious vehicles; and rigs, rafts or floating platforms, or any other moveable things constructed or adapted for floating on, or partial or total submersion in, water.

The Insolvency Bill 1984 and Romalpa clauses

A controversial Insolvency Bill was introduced in the House of Lords in December 1984. Its provisions are based on, though not completely congruent with, the proposals of Sir Kenneth Cork’s Review Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice (1982) Cmnd. 8558 and the Government’s White Paper on Insolvency (1984) Cmnd. 9175. Of particular interest are the proposed reforms as to retention of title agreements, defined as agreements for the sale of goods to a company, being agreements which do not constitute a charge on the goods but under which, if the seller is not paid and the company is wound up, the seller will have priority over all other creditors of the company as respects the goods or any other property representing the goods.

The Bill proposes, for companies in financial difficulties, a new system of judicial administrative orders for the appointment of an administrator to secure the survival of the company, or of the whole or part of its undertaking, as a going concern, or to secure a more advantageous realization of the company’s assets than would be effected on a winding up. During the period beginning with the presentation of a petition for an administration order and ending with the making of such an order or the dismissal of the petition, no steps could be taken to repossess goods in the company’s possession under any retention of title agreement except with the leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court might impose. Once an administration order was made and in force, for 12 months no repossession would be possible.