Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:29:34.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Subrogation, Recoupment and Contribution: Principles Not Included

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2005

Get access

Extract

Despite the complexity of the facts in Niru Battery Manufacturing Co. v. Milestone Trading Ltd. (No. 2) [2004] EWCA Civ 487, [2004] 2 All E.R. (Comm.) 289, the issue before the Court of Appeal was straightforward: could one party which had discharged the liability of another claim restitution from that other party? This would seem to raise an issue of contribution. However, the Court of Appeal treated the case as primarily involving issues of subrogation and “recoupment” and, whilst the judges sought to achieve a result which was just and equitable, their decision was both unjust and fatally flawed by virtue of confusion as to the operation of the underlying principles.

In Niru Battery (No. 1) [2003] EWCA Civ 1446, [2004] Q.B. 985 (noted [2004] C.L.J. 276) two parties were found to be jointly and severally liable to the claimant.

Type
Case and Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)