Dear all

I've only had time to skim the Swinsin case and may have more detailed
comments when I read it later but the result seems unjustifiable in
any sense but the most arid and technical.

It seems wrong to me and would I think seem clearly wrong to the
average intelligent lay person.

I am dubious whether recovery should be through subrogation or unjust
enrichment reasoning but in no doubt at all that there should be
recovery on facts such as these.

Kind regards

Ger