Akindele (Felicity Toube, 15 Jun 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:	Felicity Toube
Date:	Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:55:06 +0100
Re:	Akindele

Further to my posting yesterday, a Digest of Akindele is at

http://www.newlawonline.com/cgi-bin/nlo.dll/GNrHKKoZxmo/ indexv.htm?id= 101389

As can be seen from the judgment, the court affirmed that dishonesty is required for knowing assistance and expressly rejected the suggestion that it was required for knowing receipt. However, rather than decide whether constructive notice/knowledge was sufficient, the Court of Appeal held that the proper test was that of "unconscionability".

Felicity Toube

<== 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.