Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Have you ever yearned for a personalised number plate? Or do you think they're tacky? Would you think yourself enriched if you came by someone else's personalised number plate? How about 'TAC 1'? These and other fascinating issues are discussed in the language of subjective devaluation, incontrovertible and readily realised benefits by Mance LJ at [26]-[40]:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/47.html

At [44] it also seems that defence counsel failed to spot until too late that the contribution claim against his client should have been a non-starter following the decision by Lord Steyn in Royal Brompton NHS Trust v Hammond that a claim will not lie under the 1978 Act between two parties, one of whom is liable in tort or breach of contract and the other in UE - a last ditch effort to amend was turned down - counsel for the other side said that if the amendment had been allowed then he 'would have argued for contribution in accordance with the doctrine of equitable subrogation pursuant to Banque Financière de la Cité v. Parc (Battersea) Ltd. [1999] 1 AC 221'. Presumably this means that he has read Niru and like Moore-Bick J is untroubled by the fact that it is incoherent to allow a claim for contrib 'via subrog' where a direct claim for contrib is not available, given the statements in Parc and Dubai that contrib and subrog are both remedies for UE.

CH4RLE2