Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

It's unclear to me from the newspaper reports I have read exactly how Lord Archer's conspiracy with his friend to lie about their imaginary dinner date is alleged to have affected the outcome of his libel action against the Daily Star. As I understand the story, the friend never actually lied in court about this, as evidence relating to the night in question was not pursued in argument. However, if the paper were able to establish that the outcome of Lord Archer's libel action was materially affected by his and his friend's perjury, then I think that Michael Zander is right, and the paper should have a claim in unjust enrichment to recover its money on the ground that it was paid pursuant to Lord Archer's improper use of legal process. For cases along these lines, see eg our dear old friend Moses v Macferlan; Duke of Cadaval v Collins (1836) 4 A & E 858; and cases cited in G & J Chap 16.

Alternatively, the paper might argue that the libel damages awarded represented the profits of the wrong of conspiracy committed by Lord Archer and his friend, and seek an order for disgorgement. If this worked, then the friend would be jointly and severally liable too, and the £12,000 he got from the News of the World for his story would look rather small alongside the £500,000 he might potentially have to pay the Daily Star. Since all this money went to Lord Archer, I would expect he would be first in line to pay, on the principle, qui sentit commodum sentire debet et onus. However, if Lord Archer were to declare himself bankrupt (it's been known to happen), then the friend might find himself in difficulties.

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

tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465