but at least on the version I have just read, the "previous" button in fact functions as the "next" button. Very odd, but it seemed to work. You could try

"klein02" etc to get each of the nine sections. It is very long.

As to the holding, the following is stated to be the conclusion of Lord Goff (in which the House unanimously concurred - though in individual judgments - except as indicated):

"Issue 1: The present rule, under which in general money is not recoverable in restitution on the ground that it has been paid under a mistake of law, should no longer be maintained as part of English law, from which it follows that the facts pleaded by Kleinwort Benson in each action disclose a cause of action in mistake.

Issue 1A: There is no principle of English law that payments made under a settled understanding of the law which is subsequently departed from by judicial decision shall not be recoverable in restitution on the ground of mistake of law. [On a quick read, this seems to have been the point upon which Lords Browne-Wilkinson and Lloyd dissented; Lord Hoffmann having originally been of this view changed his mind and joined the majority]

Issue 1B: It is no defence to a claim in English law for restitution of money paid or property transferred under a mistake of law that the defendant honestly believed, when he learnt of the payment or transfer, that he was entitled to retain the money or property.

Issue 2: There is no principle of English law that money paid under a void contract is not recoverable on the ground of mistake of law because the contract was fully performed.

Issue 3: Section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies in the case of an action for the recovery of money paid under a mistake of law."

Hence, the Brennan J (honest belief) and Birks (closed transaction) possible answers were rejected. There is much to conjure with here, especially on the nature of the mistake in fact made by the plaintiffs (on which the holding appears to be 3 to 2), and on the proper role of courts of final appeal in overtly changing the law (Introduction to Legal Systems and Methods Courses will be as affected by this decision as Restitution Courses will). But apart from a short paragraph in Lord Goff's judgment, there appears to be nothing on (total) failure of consideration, or on absence of consideration. Perhaps there does not need to be, since mistake is now seen to be a sufficient unjust factor, but the conclusions on that point will surely have knock on effects in those other areas.

Eoin

EOIN O'DELL
Barrister, Lecturer in Law

Trinity College
Dublin 2
Ireland

ph (+ 353 - 1) 608 1178
fax (+ 353 - 1) 677 0449

Live Long and Prosper !!
(All opinions are personal; no legal responsibility whatsoever is accepted.)