Some clarity wouldn't go amiss here but as I understand things, there are two cars which are the property of a company (A). A passed over possession of those cars to another company (B). There is no suggestion that B was unlawfully in possession of A's cars.
In turn, B passed the cars to the OP's company (C) for the purpose of servicing and repairs. If B had no
interest in or benefit to derive from effecting the repairs, it seems to me a reasonable conclusion to draw that B contracted with C as agent of A in order to repair and improve A's cars and as such the contract made by B with C was for A's benefit. C are now in possession of A's cars having carried out the repairs. There is no suggestion the cars are subject to HP.
In my view C is entitled to exercise a lien over A's cars as an unpaid bailee. Further, that C may exercise the powers conferred by
Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977 section 12 so long as C follows the procedure set out in the Act.
It seems to me that in the circumstances outlined above the liquidation of B is of no consequence.
As I say, some clarity wouldn't go amiss so if I have misunderstood it would be a good idea to clarify the precise position and inter-relationship of A, B and C before running off to flog the damn things.
x20
if a car is sor from a dealer who goes bankrupt who owns the car 
