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 believe that as regards accounting, not tracing, the "innocent donees" in Diplock were liable only because they knew they had received trust moneys. I do not see that knowledge of the source of Lord Archer's bounty would be the equivalent.

-----Original Message-----

From: Gerard McMeel
To: Simon Evans
Date: 17 January 2000 11:10
Subject: Re: RDG: Archer and Innocent Donees

Sorry to revive this topic, but there is a spin on this which I believe was not raised.

I was perusing Michael Crick's very readable biography of JA this morning, "Stranger than Fiction". This reminded me (at p 307 of the hardback) Tahiti the main beneficiaries of Archer's libel damages were Cheltenham Ladies' College and two Cambridge colleges (of which the fragrant Mary was alumnus), together with Brasenose College, Oxford (of which Jeffrey is a quasi-alumnus) and Ely Cathedral.

Personally I am somewhat sceptical that any cause of action exists, unless the Daily Star can establish bad faith bringing of civil suit or can succeed on an out-of-time appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, on the assumption that the right exists (and further assuming JA's appearance of wealth is all a sham) would the claim extend to the innocent donees? This would test people's views on the reach of Diplock. Presumably the efficacy of change of position would be significant.

----------------------
Gerard McMeel