Knowing Receipt (Lionel Smith, 25 May 2000)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Lionel Smith
Date:	Thu, 25 May 2000 21:40:38 +0100
Re:	Knowing Receipt

In February Paul Matthews mentioned the Court of Appeal's decision in Houghton v. Fayers, in which it was held that for a defendant to be liable in knowing receipt, it is enough to establish that he knew or ought to have known of the breach of trust or fiduciary duty. This would put English law into the same position as Canadian law (Citadel General Assurance v. Lloyds Bank Canada [1997] 3 SCR 805, 152 DLR (4th) 385).

Houghton v. Fayers is now reported at [2000] 1 BCLC 571.

Lionel

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.