-- >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Wed Jun 09 10:11:35 1999 Received: from oxmail1.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10reOV-00084z-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:11:35 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10reOe-0005yu-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:11:44 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10reOe-0004qq-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:11:44 +0100 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:11:53 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith Subject: Alberta Law Review: Special Issue Out yesterday is a special issue of the Alberta Law Review, (1999) 37 Alta L Rev, devoted to restitution. The contents: Mitchell McInnes, The Canadian Principle of Unjust Enrichment: Comparative Insights into the Law of Restitution GHL Fridman, Quantum Meruit Nicholas Rafferty, Contracts Discharged Through Breach: Restitution for Services Rendered by the Innocent Party Michael Bryan, The Receipt-Based Constructive Trust: A Case Study of Personal and Proprietary Restitution in the Supreme Court Jeff Berryman, Equitable Compensation for Breach by Fact-Based Fiduciaries: Tentative Thoughts on Clarifying Remedial Goals Paul M Perrell, Compensation and the Scope of Equity's Remedial and Restitutionary Generosity Leonard I Rotman, Deconstructing the Constructive Trust Robert Chambers, Constructive Trusts in Canada >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Wed Jun 09 16:32:53 1999 Received: from oxmail1.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10rkLV-0003lI-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:32:53 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10rkLe-00079a-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:33:02 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10rkLe-0001dM-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:33:02 +0100 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:33:10 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith Subject: Alta L Rev Single issues of the special issue of the Alberta Law Review may be ordered from them for US$15. They will accept other currencies. Orders to . Oxford orders to me for a bulk request. Lionel >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Wed Jun 09 19:42:59 1999 Received: from oxmail1.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10rnJT-0004OD-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:42:59 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10rnJc-0002dZ-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:43:08 +0100 Received: from max21.public.ox.ac.uk ([192.76.27.21]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10rnJb-0000Ub-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:43:08 +0100 Subject: Alta L Rev again Date: Wed, 9 Jun 99 19:44:33 +0100 x-sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Lionel Smith To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: I am sorry to say that I omitted one article from the contents of this special issue: David Stevens and Jason W Neyers, What's Wrong with Restitution? My apologies to the authors for that. Lionel >From eodell@dux4.tcd.ie Thu Jun 10 11:54:49 1999 Received: from dux4.tcd.ie ([134.226.1.194]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10s2Tx-0005gn-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:54:49 +0100 Received: from [134.226.248.23] (law023.law.tcd.ie [134.226.248.23]) by dux4.tcd.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20853 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:54:55 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:54:55 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: eodell@tcd.ie (Eoin O' Dell) Subject: Rescission, again Hello all Thanks to Lionel for bringing the Alb L Rev stuff to our attention. Can I bring the list back to this time last year, when I was sending long emails about the nature of rescission arising out of the decision of the House of Lords in Barclays Bank v O'Brien? I received many replies, both on and off list. Thank you all for that. After much thought, I've accepted many of the criticisms, but not all. For those who are interested, can I run a modified version of the argument past you ? It incorporates the view upon which most of the criticisms of my earlier position were predicated that obligations arise from the categories of causative events of consent, wrongs, unjust enrichment, and others; but, as I now conceive of rescission, this point does not dispute the validity of my argument. Take the following example. P asserts that D owes an obligation in contract (consent); D defends on the grounds that the contract is void. The court holds that the contract is indeed void (for example, for ultra vires; as in Hazell). All that has happened so far is that the court has considered whether an obligation arises in the category of causative event of consent, and has held that it does not. P now asserts that in the absence of the contract, D has been unjustly enriched and must make restitution. The court holds that consequent upon the voidness of the contract, D must indeed make restitution (Westdeutsche, Guiness Mahon, Kleinwort Benson). All that has happened now is that the court has considered whether an obligation arises in the category of causative event of unjust enrichment, and has held that it does. In other words, the process of the finding of ultra vires is the process by which it is determined that no obligation based upon consent arises; the subsequent application of the four enquiries is the process by which it is determined that an obligation based upon unjust enrichment arises. I am absolutely convinced that this analysis holds for void contracts. Now, let us change the example slightly, so that it covers not a void contract but a voidable one. Again, P asserts that D owes an obligation in contract (consent); D defends on the grounds that the contract is voidable. The court holds that the contract is indeed voidable, and sets it aside. All that has happened so far is that the court has considered whether an obligation arises in the category of causative event of consent, and has held that it does not. P now asserts that in the absence of the contract, D has been unjustly enriched and must make restitution. The court holds that consequent upon the avoidance of the contract, D must indeed make restitution. All that has happened now is that the court has considered whether an obligation arises in the category of causative event of unjust enrichment, and has held that it does. In other words, the process of the avoidance of the contract is the process by which it is determined that no obligation based upon consent arises; the subsequent application of the four enquiries is the process by which it is determined that an obligation based upon unjust enrichment arises. In other words, my view is that what we currently call rescission and think of as a monolithic process is in fact a two stage process (just like with tracing where orthodoxy has it as a monolithic process, but restitution scholarship has insisted that it is a two-stage process, ie, the combination of identification and claiming). Of course, the process of rescission needs a little tweaking to reach this position, but much of that tweaking is already happening anyway without it being directed to this end (see esp Nahan "Rescission: A case for rejecting the classical model ?" (1997) 27 UWALR 66). On this view, when a contract goes off (whether that is because it is void, or voidable and avoided), there are always two separate enquiries: the first is whether there is a valid contract (ie whether there is a valid obligation arising from consent); if not, the second is whether restitution follows (ie whether there is a valid obligation arising from unjust enrichment). And, on this view, the O'Brien rule - whether the bank has "notice" of the husband's "equitable wrong" against the wife - is simply the first enquiry (the contract enquiry, the consent enquiry). In response to an earlier version of the above argument, Lionel Smith and Prof Birks objected that the "right to rescind" is a right which arises by operation of law to reverse an unjust enrichment. In my view, the "right to rescind" (like the "right to trace") is in fact a process which contains two distinct elements, the first is the defence to the cause of action in contract (consent); the second is the right to restitution; only the second of these two elements is an obligation in the Birksian taxonomy of causative events. Of course, this could all be entirely mad, but I would welcome arguments as to whether or not it is. Best regards from Dublin, and now back to piles of lovely exam scripts which I have been studiously ignoring for the last half hour in typing the above. Eoin. EOIN O'DELL Barrister, Lecturer in Law, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland (353/0 1) 608 1178 (w) 677 0449 (fx); (353/0 86) 286 0739 (m); eodell@tcd.ie (All opinions are personal. No legal responsibility whatsoever is accepted.) >From s.evans@law.unimelb.edu.au Thu Jun 10 13:02:50 1999 Received: from myriad.its.unimelb.edu.au ([128.250.6.196]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10s3Xg-0001cC-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:02:45 +0100 Received: from law.unimelb.edu.au (its-dialin2asy15.its.unimelb.edu.au [128.250.138.143]) by myriad.its.unimelb.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27548; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:02:10 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <375FA959.A1EDDB75@law.unimelb.edu.au> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:02:33 +1000 From: Dr Simon Evans X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk" , s.evans@law.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Constructive and resulting trusts, tracing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Western Australian Supreme Court (Anderson J) today decided _The Hancock Family Memorial Foundation Ltd v Porteous_ [1999] WASC 55 (10 June 1999) . The case has achieved some notoriety in Australia -- it is a colourful tale of a dispute between the (second) wife and daughter of the late Lang Hancock (a mining magnate) about assets that were acquired in the name of Hancock's second wife (and companies associated with her) with the money of Hancock's private companies (now controlled by Hancock's daughter). Little of the colour of the case (as reported in the newspapers) appears in the judgment. Nonetheless, list members may be interested in the discussion of tracing, resulting trusts and recipient and accessory liability following breach of fiduciary duty. Tracing: Anderson J approached tracing as "a separate head of claim" requiring an initial fiduciary relationship and a breach of the duties arising under it. Accessory liability: Anderson J approved Royal Brunei v Tan (insofar as it decides that the acessory must be dishonest to be liable) but appears to have retained the requirement that the breach of duty be fraudulent, at least 'in the sense in which the word "fraud" is used in equity'. Recipient liability: Perhaps one day we will have an authoritative statement of what is required for accessory liability in Australia. (List members may recall that the High Court of Australia declined to take up this question when it refused special leave to appeal in Sixty Fourth Throne Pty Ltd v Macquarie Bank Ltd M101/1997 on 19 May 1998: see the transcript at .) In this case Anderson J simply said: "As to recipient liability, there is less certainty about what must be proved to sheet home liability to the non-trustee but I adopt, with respect, the reasoning and conclusions of Hansen J in Koorootang Nominees Pty Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1998] 3 VR 16 on the question. In the first place, it is not necessary to establish that a recipient of trust property acted dishonestly or with want of probity. Recipient liability may be established if the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge at the time he received the relevant property that (a) it was trust property and (b) it was being misapplied. The defendant will be taken to have constructive knowledge if it is proved that he wilfully shut his eyes to the obvious; that he wilfully and recklessly failed to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make in the circumstances; and that he knew of circumstances which would indicate the true facts to an honest and reasonable man. If all that is proved is that the defendant had knowledge of circumstances which would put an honest and reasonable man on inquiry, that is not enough: see Koorootang at 85 and 105." -- Simon Evans Faculty of Law University of Melbourne >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Tue Jun 15 09:37:14 1999 Received: from oxmail3.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.9] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10toiY-0006T8-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:37:14 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10toie-0005W3-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:37:20 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10toid-0004mn-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:37:19 +0100 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:37:33 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith Subject: contribution Stimpson v. Smith [1999] 2 WLR 1292 (CA): plaintiff and defendant were joint and several guarantors of a company, up to =A325k. The guarantee required written demand. The company was in trouble. The plaintiff paid the bank =A320k without any written demand, and without the knowledge of the defendant, on the basis that the plaintiff and defendant would both be released from further liability. The plaintiff sued the defendant for =A310k and won. >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Wed Jun 16 11:37:46 1999 Received: from oxmail1.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10uD4k-00043z-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:37:46 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10uD4q-0002qM-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:37:52 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10uD4p-00017p-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:37:51 +0100 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <375FA959.A1EDDB75@law.unimelb.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:37:45 +0100 To: From: Lionel Smith Subject: Re: RDG: Constructive and resulting trusts, tracing Simon Evans wrote: >Recipient liability: Perhaps one day we will have an authoritative >statement of what is required for accessory liability in Australia. >(List members may recall that the High Court of Australia declined to >take up this question when it refused special leave to appeal in Sixty >Fourth Throne Pty Ltd v Macquarie Bank Ltd M101/1997 on 19 May 1998: >see the transcript at >.) Having looked at that transcript, all I can say is that I would not want to argue an application for leave before Gaudron J. >From myservicewebinfo@email.com Thu Jun 17 23:30:12 1999 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.33] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10ukfk-0002Ta-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:30:12 +0100 Received: from tk149215.telekabel.at ([195.34.149.215] helo=195.34.149.215) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10ukfn-0000PX-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:30:17 +0100 From: marketingtips@fcmail.com To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: GET CLIENTS X-Reply-To: myservicewebinfo@email.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:30:17 +0100 Dear restitution We would like to bring your attention to a new innovative Internet-based service that connects consumers and businesses with professionals in the legal field. This new service gives legal professionals an effective and efficient way to market their services to new clients over the Internet. MyService aggregates legal questions from potential clients and distributes them to experts, such as yourself. We invite you to learn more about this new service at: http://www.myservice.com/expert/webinfo Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Carl Cemetinger >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Mon Jun 28 13:52:49 1999 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.33] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10yau1-00035K-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:52:49 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10yatz-0000J4-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:52:47 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yatz-0005z9-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:52:47 +0100 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:52:53 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith Subject: Box v. Barclays Bank In Box v. Barclays Bank (Eng. Ch. D.), investors paid money to S Ltd which later went bust. When they found that their deposits had been paid into accounts at Barclays, they sued that bank in negligence, money had and received, knowing reciept and for a declaration of trust. All claims failed. The case is reported only in The Times of 30 April 1998 but is on Lexis. There are now two notes, one by G. Virgo in [1999] Company and Financial Insolvency Law Review 119 (a Mansfield Press publication) and the other by one L. Smith in the Canadian-based (1999) 14 Banking and Finance Law Review 613. Lionel >From jeffrey.hackney@wadham.oxford.ac.uk Mon Jun 28 14:59:12 1999 Received: from oxmail3.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.9] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10ybwG-0003UA-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:59:12 +0100 Received: from ermine.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.13]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10ybwF-0001n8-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:59:11 +0100 Received: from hackney.wadham.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.164.14]) by ermine.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10ybwF-0008Gb-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:59:11 +0100 From: Jeffrey Hackney Sender: hackney@wadh.ox.ac.uk Reply-To: jeffrey.hackney@wadham.oxford.ac.uk To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: Box v Barclays Bank Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 14:59:42 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Just a footnote to Lionel's note. Box was reported by New Law on 24.3.98 and the full text was available a day or two later. Just to remind colleagues that I managed to procure a free subscription to New Law for Oxford Lawyers. ----------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Hackney, Wadham College, Oxford OX1 3PN jeffrey.hackney@wadh.ox.ac.uk Tel. (0)1865 277918 >From francis.rose@buck.ac.uk Wed Jun 30 12:45:54 1999 Received: from gateway.buckingham.ac.uk ([194.83.163.1]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10zIoM-0001M0-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:45:54 +0100 Received: from LAW_6.buckingham.ac.uk ([194.83.163.186]) by gateway.buckingham.ac.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA14269 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:47:30 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199906301147.MAA14269@gateway.buckingham.ac.uk> From: "Francis Rose" To: Subject: RDG: Box v Barclays Bank Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:54:36 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In fact Box is reported at [1998] Lloyd's Rep Bank 185, something which the editor of the Company, Financial and Insolvency Law Review must confess to having overlooked. >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Wed Jun 30 13:33:11 1999 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.33] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 10zJY7-0001Wo-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:33:11 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10zJY5-0006dW-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:33:09 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10zJY4-0008W8-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:33:08 +0100 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:33:16 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith Subject: Lonrho Exports Subrogation buffs may want to look at Lonrho Exports Ltd v Export Credits Guarantee Dept [1999] Ch. 159. It was decided almost two years ago and has been reported elsewhere but has not been mentioned on the RDG I think. Lionel