This article considers the priority of a power to revest title in insolvency. It concludes that such powers are best characterised as mere equities. Mere equities rank behind equitable estates, which include floating charges. A claimant with a power to revest title who exercises his right to revest will, depending on the facts, obtain an equitable or a legal title to the asset. The asset concerned will then leave the scope of the floating charge. But if the power to revest remains unexercised when the floating charge crystallises, the mere equity will rank behind the floating charge when the insolvent’s assets are distributed. If an unjust enrichment claimant enjoys only a power to revest title, rather than an immediately vested interest under a trust, the scope of proprietary restitution will be significantly curtailed.
What is the status of restitutionary power to revest title in insolvency. King’s Law Journal, Hart Publishing, Vol 22, Number 2, pp. 228-245(18).