Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Charles Mitchell |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:31:49 |
| Re: |
Mistake of law |
As
I expect many members of the group are already aware, a gap left by the
HL's decision in Kleinwort
v Lincoln CC has now been plugged. Allowing recovery in that case of
a payment made under a mistake of law, Lord Goff and the other members of
the majority notably failed to tell us what types of mistake should count
in actions to recover benefits on the ground of mistake of law. By analogy
with the mistake of fact cases the possibilities seemed to include liability
mistakes, causative mistakes, and fundamental mistakes. In Nurdin
and Peacock plc v D B Ramsden and Co Ltd, [1999] The Times, 18th Feb,
Neuberger J has now held that Robert Goff J's causative test in Barclays
Bank v Simms 'should apply equally to a case where the money was paid under
a mistake of law'.
______________________________
Dr Charles Mitchell
Lecturer in Law
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS
tel: 0171 873 2290
fax: 0171 873 2465
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
