Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Duncan Sheehan |
| Date: |
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:51:46 -0000 |
| Re: |
Mistake and Voluntary Transfers |
Lewison J does say later on
It is plain in my judgment that a mistake of fact is capable of bringing the equitable jurisdiction into play. All that is required is a mistake of a sufficiently serious nature. In my judgment a mistake about an existing or pre-existing fact if sufficiently serious is enough to bring the jurisdiction into play. (at para 25) He clearly knows what a mistake is, I think. It seems to me that there are two possibilities 1. Eoin's misprediction about the time of his death, 2. A mistake as to the current state of his health - from which he deduces time of death.
Number 2 counts - number 1 doesn't (or shouldn't). It's not easy to tell the difference though.
Duncan
Hi all,
Thanks James for bringing this interesting case to my attention. But isn't it a misprediction as to a future event (the time of his death)? If so, shouldn't it be outside the definition of mistake? Is that one of the points of Dextra Bank & Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica [2001] UKPC 50 (26 November 2001) (which doesn't seem to have been discussed by Lewison J). What am I missing here? Any guidance gratefully appreciated.
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
