Site icon swarb.co.uk

Bilbie v Lumley and Others; 28 Jun 1802

References: (1802) 2 East 469, [1802] EngR 245, (1802) 102 ER 448
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Ellenborough CJ
Ratio An underwriter paid a claim under a policy which he was entitled in law to repudiate for non-disclosure. Although he knew the relevant facts, he was not aware of their legal significance. He claimed back the money he had paid.
Held: A contract cannot be set aside on the grounds of a mistake as to the law. Whereas money paid under a mistake of fact is generally recoverable, as a general rule money is not recoverable on the ground that it was paid under a mistake of law.
Lord Ellenborough asked counsel for the plaintiff: ‘whether he could state any case where if a party paid money to another voluntarily with a full knowledge of all the facts of the case, he could recover it back again on account of his ignorance of the law.’ In the absence of an answer, judgment was given for the defendant: ‘Every man must be taken to be cognisant of the law; otherwise there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance might not be carried. It would be urged in almost every case.’
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 199748

Exit mobile version