Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Clef Aquitaine Sarl v Laporte Materials (Barrow) Ltd [2000] 3 WLR 1760, [2000] 3 All ER 493, CA: damages for deceit even though transaction was profitable, because it would have been more so but for the deceit. It would have been more so, it seems, out of the defendant's pocket as a different contract would have been concluded. Is this a step towards deceit's being a disgorgement-yielding wrong?

Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169, [2000] LGR 481 CA. Restitution of money paid under duress of goods ie car clamping. Exemplary damages denied. This case has an extraordinary procedural point in the tail. The appeal was originally heard by two LJJ, who could not agree and who therefore ordered that it be re-argued before a panel of another three, but the parties were not informed of this order, so did not have a chance to say that they did not think this was a good idea in the case of a sum of £100, and so it was indeed argued twice before the CA. One does not often see the court apologizing to the litigants. The argument that if an even number of appellate judges split evenly then the appeal must be dismissed was swept aside on the basis that the two LJJ had ordered a rehearing before three; sed quaere. I only ever once heard before of an appellate judge who took the position that he was not obliged to deliver a judgment.

Smith v Lloyds TSB Group plc [2000] 3 WLR 1725 CA: No liability in conversion on either collecting or paying bank in respect of materially altered cheques/bank draft, at the suit of the payee in each case, as the alteration made it void and so valueless. [Ironically cited in argument was Bank of Canada v Bank of Montreal (1977) 76 DLR (3d) 385 (SCC), in which an even number of judges divided evenly so the appeal was dismissed.] If I am reading this right, in the case of the cheque the bank must re-credit the account of the drawer (having paid without mandate) so the payee should be all right, but in the case of the draft (drawer being also the drawee, the defendant paying bank) the payee bears the loss. Hard cheese indeed. The assumption appears to be that while the bank might have issued a new draft had the invalidity of the earlier one come to light before it was paid, the bank was under no such obligation now. Is this right? If the draft ceased to be a draft on alteration, it was effectively destroyed, a fortiori from "lost" in ss 69-70 Bills of Exchange Act. It was held (barely) in the SCC case mentioned that if promissory notes (of which bank notes and bank drafts are subsets) are destroyed they must be replaced. This holding was approbated by FA Mann in the CBLJ.

Lionel