Retention of Title and Vesting Clauses - Do they provide security over goods?

Accessing papers

If you are logged in as a member or a registered academic, you will see a link to download the paper for FREE. The link is just above the Add to Cart button.

If you wish to purchase the paper, you must be logged in first (click here to log in, or click here to register). You will then see the Add to Cart button. You may also have a choice of preferred format if both are available - PDF download costs £3 inc VAT, printed version costs £7.50 inc postage (no VAT). Choosing one or the other changes the price displayed.

When you are ready to check out, use the 'View basket' link in the top left of the website.

Michael Mendelblat

July 2016

A revised version of a paper originally presented to the Society of Construction Law at a meeting in London on 4th June, Belfast on 15th October 2013 and Birmingham on 21st January 2014

In 1976, in the Romalpa case, the Court of Appeal first accepted the possible effectiveness of a retention of title clause to prevent goods (and hence their value) being lost on the insolvency of a project party, and since then the law and construction contract practice have evolved significantly.  Michael Mendelblat’s paper Retention of Title and Vesting Clauses: Do they provide security over goods? was published in March 2014 (paper 185), but the law has evolved further, with significant Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases, including the PST Energy.  The author has therefore revised and updated his original paper, which summarises the complex law as it applies specifically to construction projects, including copious references to clauses in standard form contracts. 

Introduction – The problem – Who is the owner? – The competing principles – Statutory protection for sub-buyers of goods – The Rompalpa case – Types of clause – Case law in construction – Some problem areas – Vesting certificates – What is the optimum position for a subcontractor in a retention of title dispute? – The employer’s optimum position – Vesting clauses and the Belmont case – Cases referred to in the Belmont judgment – Are the standard forms vulnerable? – Conclusions.

The author: Michael Mendelblat is a solicitor and a professional support lawyer specialising in construction at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP: michael.mendelblat@hsf.com.

Text 19 pages.

Paper number: 
D190
July 2016, online, 664k
£3.00

Our papers

The Society has published nearly 400 papers since 1984. Some are published both in hard copy and electronically (numbered), others in electronic format only (number prefixed 'D'). The hard copy papers can be purchased (except those marked with an asterisk which are no longer available). They are all also available as PDF files to download.

Those available as downloads can be accessed free by members and registered academics (students and staff) - if logged in, they will see a link to the file just above the Add to Cart button on each paper's page. Others can purchase the PDF file for a cost of £3.00. Note that this sum includes VAT, since VAT is chargeable on digital files.

For further instructions on downloading, click here. The PDF file will only open on your computer if you have Adobe Acrobat installed (to obtain a free copy, click here). To save the paper to your computer, choose the 'save' icon on the Acrobat toolbar before opening the paper.

For personal use only

The papers on this website are for use by SCL members (and those who pay for them) only, and papers may be downloaded, printed and/or otherwise retained for that purpose only by members of the SCL (and those who purchase them).  The availability of all papers past and present represents a significant benefit to members of SCL and wider dissemination of SCL papers dilutes that to the detriment of the membership.  Further and more importantly, copyright in the papers belongs jointly to the writers of the paper and to the SCL, and the SCL is not therefore in a position to provide any wider licence.  Accordingly the SCL asks members and those who purchase papers not to disseminate papers more widely than their licence allows (e.g. by posting them on internal legal resource intranet databases and the like). 

Feedback