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 Guildford BC v Hein [2005] EWCA Civ 929, the appellant council won two orders disqualifying the respondent from keeping dogs, and removed 26 German Shepherds from her custody. The orders expired but the council did not immediately redeliver the dogs as it was concerned that the respondent would mistreat them. The questions then arose whether the council was obliged to redeliver the dogs notwithstanding its fears that she would not look after them properly, and more interestingly for the RDG's purposes, whether she was liable to reimburse the council for the hefty £60,000 kennelling fees it had paid after the expiry of the disqualification orders. At [24] Sir Martin Nourse held not: 'Whilst I fully understand the stance adopted by the Council, I cannot see on what principle they are entitled to be reimbursed for the costs of caring for dogs which ought to have been returned to Dr Hein.' However at [33] Clarke LJ considered that: 'the Council could probably say that [after the expiry of the orders] they retained possession of the dogs as a matter of necessity and that, since they owed a duty to take reasonable care of the dogs and had incurred reasonable expenses in doing so, they had a correlative right to be paid reasonable expenses or even reasonable remuneration for doing so, by the application of the principles in cases like China Pacific SA v Food Corporation of India (The Winson) [1982] AC 939, Cargo ex Argos (1873) LR 5 PC 134 and Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Ex 132.' (cf Waller LJ at [80]).

CM

Professor Charles Mitchell
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS

tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465