Royal Bank of Canada v Turton et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 09 February 1981
• Docket Number: Action No. 70 of 1981
• Date: 09 February 1981

Supreme Court

Moe, C.J.

Action No. 70 of 1981

Royal Bank of Canada

and

Turton et al

Mr. Derek Courtenay, S.C. for the plaintiff

Mr. Denys Barrow, for the claimant

Writ of Execution - Whether claimant has right to possession by virtue of bill of sale — Sections 2(3) and 27 of Bills of Sale Ordinance, Chapter 210 — Claimant had to take physical possession of chattels to give effect to Bills of Sale — Effect of failure by claimant to take physical possession of chattels — Bills of Sale Ordinance.

Moe, C.J.

1 On the 25th August, 1981 certain goods and chattels were seized under and by virtue of a writ of execution issued on the 17th June, 1981 in pursuance of judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on the 14th April, 1981.

2 On the 21st November, 1981 the Development Finance Corporation gave notice of its claim (a) to hold the said goods and chattels under a bill of sale; (b) that it had already seized the said goods under the bill of sale. The Development Finance Corporation claims the right to possession of the goods and chattels and requests delivery of them by the Registrar. The plaintiff disputes the title of the Development Finance Corporation to the goods.

3 In this matter, I am required to determine whether at the time of the execution of the process i.e. on the 25th August, 1981, the claimant had the right to possession of the goods and chattels concerned.

4 Both the claimant and judgment creditor are agreed that the Development Finance Corporation had a duly registered bill of sale on the goods which expired on the 16th February, 1981. That on the 11th March, 1980 the said goods had been seized under powers of the bill of sale. That no further action was taken by Development Finance Corporation with respect to goods until 9th November, 1981 when a subsequent bill of sale was executed.

5 The claimant submits that the seizure by the Development Finance Corporation during the term of validity of the bill of sale vested the possession in the goods on Development Finance Corporation and that possession continues until there is satisfaction of the amount for which the bill of sale was granted.

6 The judgment creditor contends (1) that the seizure on the 11th March, 1980 does not go on in perpetuity; (2) that on the 14th April, 1981, the date on which judgment was entered, the effect of the bill of sale had expired i.e. the bill of sale had expired on the 16th February,...