Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Lionel Smith |
| Date: |
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:30:25 |
| Re: |
City of Gotha again |
One part of the
conflicts reasoning in this case might be of general interest on the RDG.
The relevant statute was the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 and the
question was whether under its terms German limitation law applied. The
plaintiffs argued, like Scott Dickson, that German law had nothing to do
with anything as the tort was committed in England by a Panamanian company
which acquired the painting in England. Moses J:
"I cannot accept this submission, attractive though its simplicity be.
The claim under Section (2)(1) of the Torts (Interference With Goods)
Act 1977 is classified in Goff & Jones The Law of Restitution (4th Edition)(pages
75 to 76) as a restitutionary proprietary claim. It is a claim to protect
and enforce rights deriving from the plaintiffs' ownership of the painting.
Assertion of those rights depends upon the plaintiffs' assertion of title
which, it is accepted, must be determined under German law. [since the
plaintiffs' title derived from juridical acts taking place Germany.]
Comments?
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
