Archer - 6 Red Herrings - SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION (Matthew Scully, 23 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:	Matthew Scully
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:32:47 GMT
Re:	Archer - 6 Red Herrings - SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Steve Hedley wrote:

6. A number of cases have been cited. In only 2 of them is the proposition for which it was cited *both* relevant *and* actually present in the judgment (unless the view is taken that subrogation is relevant to this discussion, in which case the count is 3). No-one seems to be suggesting that the matter is concluded by authority. No-one has yet mentioned the Bricklayers' Hall case, which is a great deal more relevant than any of those which have been mentioned. But again, this is presumably just a matter of time.

Precisely because in that case, the arbitral award was considered res judicata. The appropriate approach would have been to have it set aside (not possible in that case, perhaps possible for Lord Archer's judgment) and then sue for restitution of the damages paid for failure of consideration (the judgment constituting the basis of payment).

Matthew Scully.
Oxford Institute of Legal Practice.

<== 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.