Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:33:54 +0100 Reply-To: Joshua Getzler Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Joshua Getzler Subject: On Target MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Court of Appeal in Bairstow v Queens Moat Houses PLC (17 May 2001) has dropped some hints that Lord Browne-Wilkinson's doctrine of equitable compensation in Target Holdings may be open to future revision. This was a case of misfeasance by company directors rather than pure fiduciaries, as Robert Walker LJ states: 50. There is ample authority, spanning well over a century, establishing that although company directors are not strictly speaking trustees, they are in a closely analogous position because of the fiduciary duties which they owe to the company. Lord Porter put the matter succinctly in Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver (1942) [1967] 2 AC 134n, 159: ""Directors, no doubt, are not trustees, but they occupy a fiduciary position towards the company whose board they form." 51. There is no need to multiply citations. One of the most recent reviews of the authorities is in the judgment of Nourse LJ in Re Duckwari [1998] Ch 253, 262, citing Re Lands Allotment Co [1894] 1 Ch 616, 631, Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture [1980] 1 AER 393, 405 and (in relation to the measure of compensation appropriate to a delinquent trustee) Knott v Cottee (1852) 16 Beav. 77. The judge's comments on Target follow: 52. The facts of Target Holdings are well known and it is not necessary to set them out in detail. The case concerned a claim against a firm of solicitors sued for its involvement in a mortgage fraud. Fraud as well as negligence was pleaded. On completion of the transaction the solicitors had (in breach of their instructions) parted with the mortgage advance before obtaining the security. Within a month, however, they did obtain the security. The claimant, as a possible short cut to having to prove fraud at trial, sought summary judgment on the basis of the unauthorised payment, despite the solicitors having obtained the security (which subsequently proved hopelessly inadequate). That is the explanation of the references in the speech of Lord Browne-Wilkinson (at pp.437 and 439) to stopping the clock'. 53. The result reached by the House of Lords in Target Holdings has been generally welcomed but the route to that result has been much debated (see in particular Sir Peter Millett, Equity's Place in the Law of Commerce (1998) LQR 114 p.214-227; Professor C E F Rickett, Where are We Going with Equitable Compensation? in Trends in Contemporary Trust Law (1996) pp.183-9). In my view it is unnecessary to go far into that debate, since whereas the trust in Target Holdings was (as Professor Ricketts puts it) simply an aspect of a wider commercial transaction involving agency, the fiduciary obligations undertaken in this case by the former directors involved heavy and continuing responsibilities for the stewardship of the company's assets. They were not strictly speaking trustees, as title to the assets was not vested in them; but they had trustee-like responsibilities, because they had the power and the duty to manage the company's business in the interests of all its members. It may be that a more satisfactory dividing line is not that between the traditional trust and the commercial trust, but between a breach of fiduciary duty in the wrongful disbursement of funds of which the fiduciary has this sort of trustee- like stewardship and a breach of fiduciary duty of a different character (for instance a solicitor's failure to disclose a conflict of interest as in Canson Enterprises v Boughton & Co (1991) 85 DLR (4th) 129, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada discussed by Lord Browne-Wilkinson at pp.438-9). 54. These points were not fully explored in the course of argument and it would not be right to express any definite view on points which are not necessary to the determination of this appeal. It is sufficient, in my view, to observe that this is a wholly different case from Target Holdings, in which (so far as concerned the application for summary judgment) the solicitors were shown to have done no more than to have acted imprudently in reimbursing their client's funds before they obtained their client's security. In this case the former directors are liable for deliberately and (at least in relation to the 1991 accounts) dishonestly paying unlawful dividends out of the company's funds which were in their stewardship. Those unlawful payments have never been reimbursed. There is also a brief discussion of the correct application of the objective dishonesty standard set out by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378, 389. Joshua Getzler ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6645,email . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:30:38 +0100 Reply-To: Francis Rose Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Francis Rose Subject: Trustee of FC Jones v Jones MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I have been told that Pumfrey J may have given a judgment recently casting doubt on this case. Does anyone have any info on this? FDR ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6645,email . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:40:47 +0100 Reply-To: Steve Hedley Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Steve Hedley Subject: Trustee of FC Jones v Jones In-Reply-To: <6B4ACB705EAED31187A7009027D5FD69F4973A@gila.buckingham.ac. uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 15:30 07/08/01 +0100, Frank Rose wrote: >I have been told that Pumfrey J may have given a judgment recently casting >doubt on this case. Does anyone have any info on this? Possibly a reference to Re a bankrupt (457/2001) (23 May), which may or may not be consistent with Jones (I'm not sure), but certainly takes a rather broad view of the 'mixing' that defeats common law tracing. I have put the case my site (www.law.cam.ac.uk/restitution/restitution.htm), and doubtless it is available elsewhere as well. Steve Hedley =================================================== FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931 e-mail : steve.hedley@law.cam.ac.uk messages : (01223) 334900 fax : (01223) 334967 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU =================================================== ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6645,email . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:55:43 +0100 Reply-To: Steve Hedley Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Steve Hedley Subject: SPTL - Glasgow 2001 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have now been authorised to reveal that the details of the SPTL Restitution section for this year are as follows: Monday 10th September 14.00-15.30 James Edelman (Oxford) 'Drawing a line between wrongs and unjust enrichemnt' Monday 10th September 15.45-17.15 Peter Jaffey (Brunel) 'Knowledge and fault in restitution and unjust enrichment' Tuesday 11th September 09.15-10.30 Ben McFarlane and Robert Stevens (Oxford) 'In defence of Sumpter v. Hedges' Tuesday 11th September 10.45-12.00 William Swadling (Oxford) 'Restitution and fraud' For further info about the Restitution section contact Francis Rose (Francis.D.Rose@bris.ac.uk); for info about the conference generally contact either Laura Macgregor (L.Macgregor@law.gla.ac.uk) or Moira Byrne (M.Byrne@admin.gla.ac.uk). General conference details at: http://www.law.gla.ac.uk/Conferences/10-13sept01.htm Steve Hedley =================================================== FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931 e-mail : steve.hedley@law.cam.ac.uk messages : (01223) 334900 fax : (01223) 334967 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU =================================================== ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6645,email . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:25:38 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: conference papers, new case, new journal MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 1. Recently published is no. 7 of vol. 79 of (2001) Texas Law Review, which contains the papers from a symposium in January 2001 on Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, namely and to wit as follows (to quote a cockroach named archie): P. Birks, "Unjust Enrichment and Wrongful Enrichment" H. Dagan, "Mistakes" G. Dannemann, "Unjust Enrichment by Transfer: Some Comparative Remarks" J. Edelman, "Unjust Enrichment, Restitution and Wrongs" D. Friedmann, "Restitution for Wrongs: The Measure of Recovery" M.P. Gergen, "What Renders Enrichment Unjust?" O. Grosskopf, "Protection of Competition Rules Via the Law of Restitution" A. Kull, "Disgorgement for Breach, the "Restitution Interest," and the Restatement of Contracts" D. Rendleman, "Quantum Meruit for the Subcontractor: Has Restitution Jumped Off Dawson's Dock?" E. Sherwin, "Restitution and Equity: An Analysis of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment" L. Smith, "Restitution: The Heart of Corrective Justice" S.A. Smith, "Justifying the Law of Unjust Enrichment" 2. In Commonwealth Reserves I v Chodar [2001] 2 NZLR 374, the NZ HC concluded that not only did it have jurisdiction to order a remedial constructive trust, but it did so, and moreover went on to vest legal title to the claimed assets in the plaintiff. Not much trust left at the end of the judgment. I hereby propose we call this a "rhetorical constructive trust." Just kidding. Maybe. 3. The first number of the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal has now been published by Hart. Many congratulations to RDG members Jamie Edelman, Steven Elliott, and Arianna Pretto, who are among the editors. Of particular interest to RDG members are S.M. Waddams, "Judicial Discretion" A.S. Burrows, "No Damages for a Third Party's Loss: Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd. v. Panatown Ltd." Lionel ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6645,email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:41:31 +0100 Reply-To: gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Gerard McMeel Subject: Re: Agnew v Commsrs of Inland Revenue (Brumarck Investments Ltd) Comments: To: Lionel Smith In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010814125756.00a86240@po-box.mcgill.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On 5 June 2001 an extremely strong Privy Council, in an appeal from New=20 Zealand, revisited the law on the proper characterisation of charges=20 over a company's book debts (and when they are can properly said to be=20 fixed, or merely floating): Agnew v IRC, just reported in [2001] 3 WLR=20 454. Leaving to one side the fascinating commercial implications of Lord=20 Millett's advice, the restitutionary question is this. Suppose an insolvency practitioner, believing a bank's charge over=20 receivables to be a fixed, rather than a floating charge (on the basis=20 of the now discredited New Bullas Trading case [1994] 1 BCLC 485), pays=20 the bank =A31 million, when he should have been paying the preferential=20 creditors (some govt debts and employess) first (under UK Insolvency=20 Act 1986, s 40). It seems to me that the prima facie claim based on Kleinwort Benson v=20 Lincoln City Council/mistake of law is unanswerable. Any doubts about=20 this? It seems defences would have to do the work. The bank would=20 struggle to show change of position, I think. Are 'good faith=20 purchase/debt validly discharged' and 'submission to an honest claim'=20 (the scope of both of which defences is a matter for debate) robust=20 enough to preclude such claims? The question is currently preoccupying accountants, insolvency=20 practitioners and banks up and down the UK. The issues may seem recondite to those from jurisdictions which have=20 reformed personal property security law along US lines. ---------------------- Gerard McMeel gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:11:14 +0100 Reply-To: Robert Stevens Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Robert Stevens Subject: Re: Agnew v Commsrs of Inland Revenue (Brumarck Investments Ltd) Comments: To: gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 Even if a court was persuaded to buy one of these rather dubious defences I would have thought that any practitioner stupid enough to have relied on re New Bullas ought to be liable for losses caused by the breach of his statutory duty to distribute properly: Pulsford v. Devenish [1903] 2 Ch 625. Robert Stevens In message gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk writes: > On 5 June 2001 an extremely strong Privy Council, in an appeal from New=20 > Zealand, revisited the law on the proper characterisation of charges=20 > over a company's book debts (and when they are can properly said to be=20 > fixed, or merely floating): Agnew v IRC, just reported in [2001] 3 WLR=20 > 454. > > Leaving to one side the fascinating commercial implications of Lord=20 > Millett's advice, the restitutionary question is this. > > Suppose an insolvency practitioner, believing a bank's charge over=20 > receivables to be a fixed, rather than a floating charge (on the basis=20 > of the now discredited New Bullas Trading case [1994] 1 BCLC 485), pays=20 > the bank =A31 million, when he should have been paying the preferential=20 > creditors (some govt debts and employess) first (under UK Insolvency=20 > Act 1986, s 40). > > It seems to me that the prima facie claim based on Kleinwort Benson v=20 > Lincoln City Council/mistake of law is unanswerable. Any doubts about=20 > this? It seems defences would have to do the work. The bank would=20 > struggle to show change of position, I think. Are 'good faith=20 > purchase/debt validly discharged' and 'submission to an honest claim'=20 > (the scope of both of which defences is a matter for debate) robust=20 > enough to preclude such claims? > > The question is currently preoccupying accountants, insolvency=20 > practitioners and banks up and down the UK. > > The issues may seem recondite to those from jurisdictions which have=20 > reformed personal property security law along US lines. > ---------------------- > Gerard McMeel > gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk > > ____________________________________________________________________ > This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, > an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law > of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in > the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, > send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to > all group members, send to . The list is > run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email > . > ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:46:41 -0400 Reply-To: "Edward C. Brewer, III" Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: "Edward C. Brewer, III" Subject: Re: Agnew v Commsrs of Inland Revenue (Brumarck Investments Ltd) Comments: To: gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I trust the list will pardon me if I am missing something obvious in=20 Professor McMeel's interesting hypothetical. Wouldn't a bank much prefer=20 to have a floating lien over general receivables instead of a fixed lien,=20 and wouldn't the bank want a fixed lien only in the case of receivables=20 from particular sources or of large size? This is not to drag us into=20 discussion of commercial implications, but only to ask whether someone=20 would help me understand how, as a matter of bank lending practices, the=20 bank might have attempted a fixed lien in general receivables that would=20 lead an insolvency practitioner to conclude that the lien was fixed. If=20 this were thought too far from our restitutionary focus, off-list responses= =20 would be fine with me. Regards, Ed Brewer At 01:41 PM 8/16/01, Gerard McMeel wrote: >On 5 June 2001 an extremely strong Privy Council, in an appeal from New >Zealand, revisited the law on the proper characterisation of charges >over a company's book debts (and when they are can properly said to be >fixed, or merely floating): Agnew v IRC, just reported in [2001] 3 WLR >454. > >Leaving to one side the fascinating commercial implications of Lord >Millett's advice, the restitutionary question is this. > >Suppose an insolvency practitioner, believing a bank's charge over >receivables to be a fixed, rather than a floating charge (on the basis >of the now discredited New Bullas Trading case [1994] 1 BCLC 485), pays >the bank =A31 million, when he should have been paying the preferential >creditors (some govt debts and employess) first (under UK Insolvency >Act 1986, s 40). > >It seems to me that the prima facie claim based on Kleinwort Benson v >Lincoln City Council/mistake of law is unanswerable. Any doubts about >this? It seems defences would have to do the work. The bank would >struggle to show change of position, I think. Are 'good faith >purchase/debt validly discharged' and 'submission to an honest claim' >(the scope of both of which defences is a matter for debate) robust >enough to preclude such claims? > >The question is currently preoccupying accountants, insolvency >practitioners and banks up and down the UK. > >The issues may seem recondite to those from jurisdictions which have >reformed personal property security law along US lines. >---------------------- >Gerard McMeel >gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk > >____________________________________________________________________ > This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, > an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law > of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in > the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, > send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to > all group members, send to . The list is > run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email > . Edward C. Brewer, III Direct (859) 572-6943 Associate Professor of Law General (859) 572-5340 Salmon P. Chase College of Law Fax (859) 572-5342 Northern Kentucky University E-mail brewerec@nku.edu 556 Louie B. Nunn Hall Nunn Drive Secretary: Karen Pape Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099 Tel. (859) 572-5391 (Overnight Zip 41076) 560 Nunn Hall ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:56:39 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: Re: Agnew v Commsrs of Inland Revenue (Brumarck Investments Ltd) In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable > >Suppose an insolvency practitioner, believing a bank's charge over >receivables to be a fixed, rather than a floating charge (on the basis >of the now discredited New Bullas Trading case [1994] 1 BCLC 485), pays >the bank =A31 million, when he should have been paying the preferential >creditors (some govt debts and employess) first (under UK Insolvency >Act 1986, s 40). > >It seems to me that the prima facie claim based on Kleinwort Benson v >Lincoln City Council/mistake of law is unanswerable. Any doubts about >this? It seems defences would have to do the work. T ... >The question is currently preoccupying accountants, insolvency >practitioners and banks up and down the UK. Another thing they might think about is who is a proper plaintiff. The=20 analogy of Re Diplock suggests a direct claim by preferential creditors v=20 bank. My own view is that this is misleading, the claim actually belongs to= =20 the executor or the company which made the payment, and any exercise by=20 next-of-kin/creditors is effectively by way of personal subrogation. This=20 has implications in the case in which the bank might have some kind of= set-off. Lionel ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:11:45 +0100 Reply-To: Matthew.Scully@CLIFFORDCHANCE.COM Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Matthew.Scully@CLIFFORDCHANCE.COM Subject: Re: Agnew v Commsrs of Inland Revenue (Brumarck Investmen ts Ltd) In brief, in response to Ed Brewer, in English Law, fixed charges are preferable to floating charges as the latter come below fixed charges and preferential creditors (employees for their salaries, expenses of the liquidation, treasury and social security (though the last two elements could cease to be preferred under planned legislation)) in liquidation. The only advantage in having a floating charge is the power to appoint an administrative receiver (although the planned legislation may take away this power too). A fixed charge can be created over receivables if the chargor does not remain free to deal with them as he pleases but is obliged to pay them into a specially designated bank account (Siebe Gorman v Barclay's Bank [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep 142). The decision in New Bullas (not followed in Brumarck) created the possibility of creating a fixed charge over the receivables but a floating charge over the proceeds. The chargor would be required to pay into the specially designated account (and so would not be free to deal with the receivables in the ordinary course of business) but could then deal with the funds in the account in the ordinary course of business. The Privy Council in Brumarck said that this didn't make sense: if you are free to deal with the money paid into the account, you have a mere floating charge. Best regards Matthew Scully ******* This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office. ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:59:10 +0100 Reply-To: Charles Mitchell Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Charles Mitchell Subject: Law Commission Report on Limitation of Actions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Law Commission Report on limitation of actions, which includes various proposals with regard to actions in unjust enrichment, can now be accessed at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/library/lc270/lc270.pdf Charles Mitchell ________________________________________________________________________ Dr Charles Mitchell Lecturer in Law School of Law King's College London Strand LONDON WC2R 2LS tel: 020 7848 2290 fax: 020 7848 2465 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:54:03 -0000 Reply-To: support@messagelabs.com Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues Comments: RFC822 error: TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. Comments: RFC822 error: TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: support@MESSAGELABS.COM Subject: WARNING. You sent a potential virus or unauthorised code The MessageLabs Virus Control Centre discovered a possible virus or unauthorised code (such as a joke program or trojan) in an email sent by you. Please read this whole email carefully. It explains what has happened to your email, which suspected virus has been caught, and what to do if you need help. ------------------------------------------------------------ Some details about the infected message ------------------------------------------------------------ To help identify the email: The message sender was owner-enrichment@LISTS.MCGILL.CA a.mryglod@SK.SYMPATICO.CA ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA (if this is not your email address, the message sender possibly belongs to a mailing list to which you both subscribe.) The message was titled '[RDG:] Mryglod' The message date was Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:52:52 -0600 The message identifier was <0GIL00KL2MC99A@lancer.sasktel.net> The message recipients were christopher.savundra@HERBERTSMITH.COM Rachel.Chan@HERBERTSMITH.COM To help identify the virus: Scanner 1 (F-Secure) reported the following: F-Secure Anti-Virus for i386-linux Release 4.12 build 3310 Frisk Software International F-PROT engine version 3.09 build 1007 588846_2MA-MIXED_Mryglod.backer2.doc.bat infection: W95/Sircam.worm@mm 1 files scanned 1 infections found The message was diverted into the virus holding pen on mail server server-30.tower-1.london-2.starlabs.net (id 588846_998700843) and will be held for 30 days before being destroyed. ------------------------------------------------------------ What should you do now? ------------------------------------------------------------ If you sent the email from a corporate network, you should first contact your local Helpdesk or System Administrator for advice. They will be able to help you disinfect your workstation. If you sent the email from a personal or home account, you will need to disinfect your computer yourself. To do this you will need an anti-virus program. We suggest using one of the leading industry anti-virus packages such as McAfee, F-Secure or Cybersoft, which cost £15-£30 per copy. ------------------------------------------------------------ Getting more help ------------------------------------------------------------ We strongly recommend that you read the Support FAQs at http://www.messagelabs.com/support/FAQs.htm These will answer many of the most common queries. If you subscribe to the MessageLabs SkyScan AV Service, please contact your IT Helpdesk/Support department for further assistance. If you do not subscribe to the MessageLabs SkyScan AV Service MessageLabs will only provide recommendations and information regarding viruses. You may contact one of our Messaging Technicians at MessageLabs Helpdesk 7 days a week , 6am - 12pm on:- +44 (0)9067 579 001 All calls will be charged at £0.75p per minute. If you believe this message to be a false alarm, you can email MessageLabs Support at:- support@messagelabs.com Please quote the following Virus Pen ID when contacting Support. <<< mail server server-30.tower-1.london-2.starlabs.net (id 588846_998700843) >>> If replying by email, please forward this entire email. _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 01:12:35 -0000 Reply-To: support@messagelabs.com Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues Comments: RFC822 error: TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. Comments: RFC822 error: TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: support@MESSAGELABS.COM Subject: WARNING. You sent a potential virus or unauthorised code The MessageLabs Virus Control Centre discovered a possible virus or unauthorised code (such as a joke program or trojan) in an email sent by you. Please read this whole email carefully. It explains what has happened to your email, which suspected virus has been caught, and what to do if you need help. ------------------------------------------------------------ Some details about the infected message ------------------------------------------------------------ To help identify the email: The message sender was owner-enrichment@LISTS.MCGILL.CA a.mryglod@SK.SYMPATICO.CA ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA (if this is not your email address, the message sender possibly belongs to a mailing list to which you both subscribe.) The message was titled '[RDG:] Mryglod' The message date was Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:52:52 -0600 The message identifier was <0GIL00KL2MC99A@lancer.sasktel.net> The message recipients were shiersra@NORTONROSE.COM bridgemg@NORTONROSE.COM To help identify the virus: Scanner 1 (F-Secure) reported the following: F-Secure Anti-Virus for i386-linux Release 4.12 build 3310 Frisk Software International F-PROT engine version 3.09 build 1007 692149_2MA-MIXED_Mryglod.backer2.doc.bat infection: W95/Sircam.worm@mm 1 files scanned 1 infections found The message was diverted into the virus holding pen on mail server server-8.tower-9.messagelabs.com (id 692149_998701955) and will be held for 30 days before being destroyed. ------------------------------------------------------------ What should you do now? ------------------------------------------------------------ If you sent the email from a corporate network, you should first contact your local Helpdesk or System Administrator for advice. They will be able to help you disinfect your workstation. If you sent the email from a personal or home account, you will need to disinfect your computer yourself. To do this you will need an anti-virus program. We suggest using one of the leading industry anti-virus packages such as McAfee, F-Secure or Cybersoft, which cost £15-£30 per copy. ------------------------------------------------------------ Getting more help ------------------------------------------------------------ We strongly recommend that you read the Support FAQs at http://www.messagelabs.com/support/FAQs.htm These will answer many of the most common queries. If you subscribe to the MessageLabs SkyScan AV Service, please contact your IT Helpdesk/Support department for further assistance. If you do not subscribe to the MessageLabs SkyScan AV Service MessageLabs will only provide recommendations and information regarding viruses. You may contact one of our Messaging Technicians at MessageLabs Helpdesk 7 days a week , 6am - 12pm on:- +44 (0)9067 579 001 All calls will be charged at £0.75p per minute. If you believe this message to be a false alarm, you can email MessageLabs Support at:- support@messagelabs.com Please quote the following Virus Pen ID when contacting Support. <<< mail server server-8.tower-9.messagelabs.com (id 692149_998701955) >>> If replying by email, please forward this entire email. _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:45:42 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: WARNING-VIRUS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Earlier tonight a message was sent out on the RDG with the "From" line "A. Mryglod" and the subject line "[RDG:] Mryglod". This message had an attachment which appears to be a virus infected file. If you click the attachment you will be infected. The McGill server responded right away with a warning to this effect, which I think went out as a posting, but I am adding my own warning to be sure. I cross my fingers that no one has been affected. If you have been, according to our McGill techs, the best solution is a free removal tool available at and our guy said >If you think you've been infected, I'd recommend downloading it [the tool] >from a >different computer onto a floppy disk. Write-protect the disk (flip the >little tab on the back so that the whole is open) and run it on your >infected computer. I don't know how this originated, as I can't find the "from" address in the subscription list, although it is worth bearing in mind that most senders of this worm are actually those who have been infected by it, ie they do not do it on purpose. Lionel ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:08:57 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: virus followup Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed My inbox is crowded. It has been interesting to see how servers all over the world responded to the incoming message with the attached virus (I know, actually a worm). Those with screening systems rejected it, returning an error message, which came back to me (although a couple of them went out as postings; the automatically generated warnings which were posted thus were not from the McGill server, as I said earlier, but via that server from RDG subscribers' servers, namely at Herbert Smith and Norton Rose). I got quite a few others. (I don't know why some errors go out as postings and some not; the same thing happens with automatically generated vacation messages; most bounce to me, but I think a few go out to all and sundry. No doubt it is partly to do with what kind of tags they carry, ie whether they identify themselves as automatically generated.) Top marks for security seem to go to large London law firms and Australian universities. In short, if you did not get the Mryglod posting (or if you got it, but with the attachment removed), you can feel that your network people are doing a great job. Lionel ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:34:56 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: Hochelaga Lecture 2001 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Professor Andrew Burrows of Oxford University will give the 2001 Hochelaga Lectures, on 22 and 23 October, in Hong Kong. His topic will be "Fusing Common Law and Equity: Remedies, Restitution and Reform". It will cover topics such as equitable compensation, punitive damages (including the recent Kuddus case) and restitutionary damages, as well as knowing receipt. The lecture will be published in due course. Lionel ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email .