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:
Gareth Jones
Date:
Tue, 20 May 1997 08:16:45 +0100
Re:
proper plaintiff

 

Both Peter B and I gave Foskett QC some help; he got to first base, but query whether he would have got further!

 

Gareth

 

In Mon, 19 May 1997, Lionel Smith wrote:

In Brennan v. Brighton BC, The Times 15 May (CA), the plaintiff worked on a sports centre leased to a corporation. The defendant owned the land but was contractually bound to the corporation to grant to it a 31 year lease of the centre. When the work was substantially completed, the defendant refused to grant the lease to the corporation. It was in liquidation and its liquidator did not pursue a claim.

The plaintiff sued in deceit. After the limitation period had expired the plaintiff sought to add a claim in unjust enrichment. The CA affirmed the decision that the claim was statute barred but doubted the judge's decision that in any event the claim in unjust enrichment disclosed no reasonable cause of action. It was not obvious that the corporation's separate personality barred
such a claim.

Lionel Smith

 


<== 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! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !