Armstrong V Winnington Networks
Armstrong V Winnington Networks
Armstrong V Winnington Networks
Harris
Joffe
There were two claims, as distinguished in Foskett and per Dr Smith
Proprietary Restitution
Claim at Common Law (B)
Personal claim parasitic on the
prior violation of a proprietary
right,
Vindication of property rights
Requires
(1)D in receipt of property
(2) that belonged to C.
Equitys darling.
Change of position
The question here was one of following the EUAs, but then tracing
into the proceeds as substitutes for the property the claimants
initially held.
Lipkin Gorman
1. Based on tracing. The firm sought to trace it original property
subsisting in th echoes in action constituted by its bank
balance into the cash Cass obtained as the proceeds of the
cheque written in his favour by the Casino.
2. Special on the basis that the contractual dealings between
Cass and the Club were void ab initio as they were gambling
contracts. The club gave no consideration, and Lord
Templeman held that had this not been the case there would
have been no action in unjust enrichment at all because there
would have been no enrichment.
3. It was a case of proprietary restitution claim at common
law. Goff was at pains to stress that the Solicitors retained
legal title throughout (possible as the money held for Cass by
the Casino was in a separate current account). Foskett said
so. So did Beldam LJ in Jones v Jones.
Jones v Jones