Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

An interesting point for contribution fanatics. My chattel is converted by A and then subsequently by B. If I recover against A, can A claim contribution against B once he has paid up? Rix J suggests that the answer is Yes in the recent cheque litigation to hit the headlines, Middle Temple v Lloyds Bank (unrep as far as I know, 21.1.99).

MT's cheque made out to its insurers, Sun Alliance, is stolen. It arrives in the hands of S in Turkey. S persuades a Constantinople bank, to whom he is otherwise unknown, to collect it for him. The bank gets Lloyds to collect payment in London. The cheque is credited to S's newly opened account in Constantinople, the money disappears and S drops out of the picture while enjoying the hospitality of the Turkish police. Both banks are liable in conversion, neither being able to show it wasn't at fault under the Cheques Act 1957, s.4. Having decided on the facts that the Turkish bank promised to indemnify Lloyds so as to give Lloyds a right to be held harmless, Rix J says that had this not been the case he would have ordered contribution under the 1978 Act, splitting responsibility 75-25 in Lloyds' favour.

Can this be right? There seems no previous instance of contribution between serial converters A and B. Furthermore, there is, I would have thought, an arguable point of principle against it: namely, can it be said that A and B are liable in respect of the same loss? They have admittedly converted the same thing: but that is not necessarily conclusive of the matter.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

AMT
Andrew Tettenborn
Bracton Professor of Law

Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (international)

Snailmail:
School of Law,
University of Exeter,
Amory Building,
Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England