Archer's woes (Charles Mitchell, 22 Nov 1999)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Charles Mitchell
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:16:55
Re:	Archer's woes

Is it meaningful to speak of a party having a right without a correlative remedy? Steve appears to think so, when he writes that he is 'surprised' to hear that 'the court is *creating* the liability when it gives the requested confirmation' that the recipient of a payment which is not due must repay it. Why did the Law Commission recommend that the courts be given the power to make restitutionary orders in the context of RSC Ord 53 proceedings? Because it thought that the plaintiff in a judicial review action who succeeded in having a public demand declared ultra vires would otherwise have no right in those proceedings to recover money paid pursuant to such a demand.

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

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.