Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Charles Mitchell |
| Date: |
Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:36:17 +0100 |
| Re: |
Tracing - choice of law |
In Barros
Mattos Jr v MacDaniels [2005] EWHC 1323 (Ch) Lawrence Collins
J reviews Dicey & Morris rule 200(2)(c) and relevant case-law, and
concludes at [117]-[118] that
'There is no decision of the Court of Appeal in which
approval of Rule 200(2)(c), or the application of a similar principle,
is the ratio.
There is no decision that Rule 200(2)(c) must be treated
as a free-standing rule mechanically applying the law of the place where
bank accounts are kept irrespective of the factual circumstances and irrespective
of the particular issue. ... Here parties in Nigeria agreed that one was
to sell to the other dollars for delivery in Switzerland in exchange for
Nigerian currency in Nigeria. This is just the kind of case where the
law of the place of the enrichment will not necessarily give an answer
which corresponds to the law which has the closest connection with the
claim or with the issue.'
CM
--
Charles Mitchell
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
