Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

In Campden Hill Ltd v Chakrani [2005] EWHC 911 (Ch) Hart J holds that the rule in Bannatyne v MacIver [1906] 1 KB 103 gives a claim in UE to a claimant whose money is used by an unauthorised agent to pay her principal's debts, but fails to explain what he thinks the unjust factor might be; confirms Robert Walker J's finding in El Ajou (No 2) [1995] 2 All ER 213, that where A and B's money is mixed in a bank account and Clayton's case deems A's money (and not B's) to have been paid to D, B can still claim against D if A makes no claim and is unlikely to do so;* applies the Roscoe v Winder lowest intermediate balance rule; and holds that a defendant has no change of position defence where he buys an interest in land as in these circs he is still enriched (analogising with Lord Templeman's car example in Lipkin Gorman).

CM

* '[77] ... To treat the claimant as being entitled to trace its monies into the relevant payments out to [D] will not destroy the ability of the other potential claimants, as against the claimant, to assert their equitable title to those monies. It will simply be to recognise that, as against [D], the claimant has the better equitable title.'

--
Charles Mitchell