![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
Robert Stevens
writes:
Whether the omission of any specific provision
[in the Limitation Act 1980] dealing with unjustified enrichment was deliberate
is probably incapable of being given an answer. I have not checked Hansard.
At 1st instance in Westdeutsche (more accurately, in the Sandwell action)
the plaintiffs argued that s 5 did not cover non-contractual claims for
restitution, and that the 1980 Act prescribed no limitation period for
such claims. At [1994] 4 All ER 890, 943, Hobhouse J held that this argument
ran counter to the general purpose of the Act and rendered the wording
of s 5 ambiguous. Pepper v Hart therefore allowed him to look in Hansard,
where he discovered that in 1938 and 1939 the Solicitor-General had expressly
said that the old 1939 Act was intended to implement the 1936 interim
report of the 1936 Law Revision Committee, which committee had expressly
included 'quasi-contract' alongside simple contract. Hobhouse J therefore
concluded that s 5 applied to claims like the plaintiffs' in respect of
money had and received.
It follows that the 1980 Act does in fact cover that portion of the law
of unjust enrichment which fell within the scope of 'quasi-contract' as
that category was understood by the Law Revision Cttee in 1936. Presumably
the cttee did not regard it as including the many equitable claims which
do not fall within the ambit of the 1980 Act - as RS rightly points out.
Charles
Dr Charles Mitchell <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |