Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Steve Hedley |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:19:06 |
| Re: |
Mistake of law |
But (at least according
to the Times report) Neuberger J added that
"It might also be that the payer had to go further and establish, for
instance, that the mistake was directly connected to the overpayment and/or
was connected to the payer/payee relationship."
At 16:31 22/02/99 +0000, Dr Charles Mitchell wrote:
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'.
Steve Hedley
===================================================
______________________________
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931
messages : (01223) 334900
fax : (01223) 334967
Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU
===================================================
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
