Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

It'd obviously be foolish & artificial to characterise the consideration that failed as the quid pro quo, though you could just do it (Axa paid for a release from a valid obligation, and didn't get it because they received a release from an invalid one instead).

Instead I'd read "consideration" widely as meaning "basis" or even "assumption" and say that had failed. It's rather like a completed swop recovery with the additional complication that what made the swop void wasn't the doctrine of ultra vires but ex post facto legislation.

Best wishes to all

Andrew

===== Original Message From Charles Mitchell =====

In Axa General Insurance Ltd v Gottlieb [2005] EWCA Civ 112, Mance LJ considers the effect of fraud on insurance claims and concludes at [132] that 'the proper scope of the common law rule relating to fraudulent insurance claims is to forfeit the whole of the claim to which the fraud relates, with the effect that the consideration for any interim payments made on that claim fails and they are recoverable.' Essays, please, on the meaning of the word 'consideration' in this sentence.