Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council and others
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; [1998] RVR, 315-340(26)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: HL 29 October 1998. Under "Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC", the appellant bank K began proceedings to recover money paid to the respondent local authorities under a mistake of law. The court considered: whether recovery of money paid under a mistake of law should be law; if not whether there should be an exception to recovery on grounds of mistake of law when the law has been changed by judicial decision; the fact that all interest rate swap transactions were fully performed; whether Limitation Act 1980 s32(1)c applied to mistakes of law. Appeal "held": (1) the rule that money paid under a mistake was unrecoverable was no longer law; (2) Payments made under private transactions later changed by judicial decision were recoverable; (3) the defence of honest receipt was not part of common law; (4) no principle said that money paid under a void contract was not recoverable; (5) Limitation Act 1980 s32(1)c applied for recovery of money paid under a mistake of law.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS60152 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 91488-1001 |
HL 29 October 1998. Under "Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC", the appellant bank K began proceedings to recover money paid to the respondent local authorities under a mistake of law. The court considered: whether recovery of money paid under a mistake of law should be law; if not whether there should be an exception to recovery on grounds of mistake of law when the law has been changed by judicial decision; the fact that all interest rate swap transactions were fully performed; whether Limitation Act 1980 s32(1)c applied to mistakes of law. Appeal "held": (1) the rule that money paid under a mistake was unrecoverable was no longer law; (2) Payments made under private transactions later changed by judicial decision were recoverable; (3) the defence of honest receipt was not part of common law; (4) no principle said that money paid under a void contract was not recoverable; (5) Limitation Act 1980 s32(1)c applied for recovery of money paid under a mistake of law.