CA decision (James Shirley, 18 Jun 2004)

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:	James Shirley
Date:	Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:21:00 +0100
Re:	CA decision

Members of the list might be interested in Filby v. Mortgage Express (No 2) [2004] EWCA (Civ) 759, handed down by the Court of Appeal this morning.

http://www2.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/759.html

The judgment is notable for what appears to be a startling finding that an agreement was void because "the claimants simply did not get what they bargained for." No authority is cited for the proposition but it appears to get the court out of answering some very difficult subrogation questions.

I'd be interested to know what others think.

James Shirley

<== 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.