Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

In response to my last e-mail, Paul McGrath, counsel for the bank, has written to say that the case is to be reported in the Lloyds Law Reports: Banking, October edition. Leave to appeal is currently being sought from CA, only (at present) on the question of what is the proper level of knowledge for knowing receipt (ie claims against D4). However, since Aikens J dismissed the MHR claim against D4 on the basis of the same tracing argument which formed the basis of his dismissal of the MHR claim against D1 (a point on which counsel did not have the opportunity to address him), it might perhaps be worth raising Lionel Smith's arguments on this issue as against D4 as well - although I would imagine that a claim for MHR against D4 (assuming the tracing point was got out of the way) would be met either by a defence of ministerial receipt, or a Portman v Hamlyn Taylor Neck-type non-enrichment argument.

Charles

Dr Charles Mitchell
Lecturer in Law
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS

tel: 0171 848 2290
fax: 0171 848 2465