Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I agree with Andrew Tettenborn that it is not necessarily true that in every situation where A and B serially convert C's chattel, they will be liable to C for the same loss - and he is of course right to say that to the extent that they are not liable for the same loss a contribution claim will not lie between them. If, for example, A has the chattel temporarily in his possession and is then in the process of returning it undamaged to C when B steals it and destroys it, it seems conceivable to me that a court might think it too draconian to award the whole value of the chattel as damages against A, although it would feel no such qualm when assessing the damages payable by B. A and B are both liable for the same tort - they have converted the same chattel - but A has merely kept C out of possession for a short period of time, whereas B has kept him out of possession forever. However, I doubt whether this example corresponds to the facts of Middle Temple v Lloyd's Bank.

The only cases vaguely like this which I am aware of are the cases which I cite at [1997] RLR 30, at n 28, which tell us that where successive acts of negligence are committed against the same victim, the tortfeasors cannot be said to be liable in respect of the same loss, and so no contribution claim will lie between them, if the actions of the second tortfeasor break the chain of causation between the victim's loss and the actions of the first tortfeasor - ie where the first tortfeasor can invoke the doctrine of novus actus interveniens, he will escape liability both to the victim in tort and to the second tortfeasor in an action for contribution.

At 09:53 04/03/99 +0000, you wrote:

An interesting point for contribution fanatics. My chattel is converted by A and then subsequently by B. If I recover against A, can A claim contribution against B once he has paid up? Rix J suggests that the answer is Yes in the recent cheque litigation to hit the headlines, Middle Temple v Lloyds Bank (unrep as far as I know, 21.1.99).

MT's cheque made out to its insurers, Sun Alliance, is stolen. It arrives in the hands of S in Turkey. S persuades a Constantinople bank, to whom he is otherwise unknown, to collect it for him. The bank gets Lloyds to collect payment in London. The cheque is credited to S's newly opened account in Constantinople, the money disappears and S drops out of the picture while enjoying the hospitality of the Turkish police. Both banks are liable in conversion, neither being able to show it wasn't at fault under the Cheques Act 1957, s.4. Having decided on the facts that the Turkish bank promised to indemnify Lloyds so as to give Lloyds a right to be held harmless, Rix J says that had this not been the case he would have ordered contribution under the 1978 Act, splitting responsibility 75-25 in Lloyds' favour.

Can this be right? There seems no previous instance of contribution between serial converters A and B. Furthermore, there is, I would have thought, an arguable point of principle against it: namely, can it be said that A and B are liable in respect of the same loss? They have admittedly converted the same thing: but that is not necessarily conclusive of the matter.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

AMT

Andrew Tettenborn
Bracton Professor of Law

Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (international)

Snailmail:
School of Law,
University of Exeter,
Amory Building,
Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England