Abou Rahmah and others v Abacha and others: CA 8 Nov 2006

The appellants were victims of a fraud conducted via the respondent bank by one of their clients. They appealed from a decision that the bank was not liable to the victims either in the equitable tort of knowing or dishonest assistance in a breach of trust, or in restitution for money had and received.
Arden LJ said: ‘before this court or the High Court decides to follow a decision of the Privy Council in place of a decision of the House of Lords the circumstances must be quite exceptional and the court must be satisfied that in practice the result would be a foregone conclusion.’
Pill LJ, Rix LJ, Arden LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1492, [2007] WTLR 1, [2007] Bus LR 220, [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 827, [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 115
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIvey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
CitedWillers v Gubay ChD 15-May-2015
The court was asked whether the tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings is known to English law.
Held: The Crawfod Adjusters case should not be followed: ‘If I am not bound by Gregory, then I see no reason for departing from the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.245913