Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Paul Matthews has just drawn my attention to a recent decision by Lindsay J in the Chancery Division, which further erodes the status of Clayton's case as the English default rule to resolve evidential difficulties whenever the money of two innocents is wrongfully mixed by a third party in a current bank account. The case is Russell-Cooke Trust Co v Prentis [2002] EWHC 2227 (Ch). Counsel in the case included Tony Oakley.

At para 55, Lindsay J reviews Barlow Clowes v Vaughan, remarks that it is 'plain' from all three of the CA judgments there that the rule in Clayton's case 'can be displaced by even a slight counterweight', and concludes that 'in terms of its actual application between beneficiaries who have in any sense met a shared misfortune, it might be more accurate to refer to the exception that is, rather than the rule in, Clayton's case'.

Charles

__________________________________________________________
Dr Charles Mitchell
Reader in Law and Director of Postgraduate Taught Programmes
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS

tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465