Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

1. Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd, Inner House, Times, 8 Feb 2000 [Judgment December 17, 1999]:

An insurer who had indemnified the insured party by meeting claims for damages had two methods of recovering his expenditure from a contractor who had given the insured an indemnity for such claims. The insurer could raise an action in his own name to enforce his right of relief for the whole sum. Alternatively, he could bring proceedings in the name of the assured against the indemnifier on the basis of the contract of indemnity.

2. Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments Ltd , English CA, 28 Jan 00 (New Law Online)

Banner and Luff were developers both interested in a development site. In 1995 Luff agreed a purchase price with the vendor and the controllers of Luff and Banner agreed in principle that the site would be bought and developed by a joint venture company to be owned and funded 50:50 by Luff and Banner. The companies instructed their solicitors accordingly and a company, Stowhelm, was acquired off the shelf to be the joint venture vehicle. Luff then had second thoughts about a joint venture with Banner and postponed signing a shareholder agreement relating to Stowhelm until after exchange of contracts for purchase of the site by Stowhelm with moneys provided by Luff. The shareholders' agreement was never signed and Banner took proceedings alleging that there had been a concluded oral agreement for a joint venture, alternatively that the circumstances gave rise to a constructive trust in favour of Banner over half the shares in Stowhelm. Held by the CA, half the shares in Stowhelm were held on constructive trust for Banner.

3. Allied Carpets Group plc v Nethercott, English QBD, 28 Jan 00 (New Law Online)

N was the chief executive officer of the claimant company, Allied, and a shareholder. He signed Allied's accounts for the years 1993-1998, representing that the accounts gave a true and fair view. In fact they did not. When Allied discovered accounting irregularities it asked its auditors to investigate and N was dismissed. Allied sought summary judgment on a claim against N for repayment of the dividends paid on his shares in 1996-97 and 1997-98 on the basis that N held them on constructive trust for the company because the payments were ultra vires for failure to comply with the Companies Act 1985 and N knew of the facts giving rise to that state of affairs. Held, there was no arguable defence to the claim for a constructive trust.

L