Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

A Scots case in the Times today (28th Nov 1997) proves in spectacular fashion that it's a bad idea to confuse contribution and subrogation: Elf Enterprise (Caledonia) Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd. The pursuers' insurer settled claims for damages against the pursuer in respect of deaths and personal injuries on the Piper Alpha oil platform. It then attempted to bring (simply) subrogated actions in the pursuers' name against the defenders, who had given the pursuers contractual indemnities in respect of the same losses. In the Outer House, Lord Caplan held that all but one of these actions should be dismissed because the effect of the insurer's payment had been to discharge the defenders from liability, and the insurer's action should have been framed as a contribution action in its own name. The case therefore echoes The Esso Bernicia, another case where the Scots courts took a dim view of parties getting into a muddle over subrogation pleadings. What is striking about the present case is that the defenders only noticed the pursuers' mistake after 381 days of argument - time and money down the drain.

Regards, Charles.

Dr Charles Mitchell
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS

tel: 0171 873 2290