The plaintiff had accepted a payment into court on a basis that a Court of Appeal decision declared the law in a form which precluded the recovery of certain types of damages. Subsequently the House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision and held that such damages were recoverable. The plaintiff in Derrick v. Williams was trying to re-open the matter on the grounds that the subsequent decision of the House of Lords showed that he had been proceeding under a mistake of law when he accepted the money paid in.
Held: The claim failed as a res judicata.
Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘It was a mistake of law, and consisted of the fact that the plaintiff was under the belief that the law as laid down by this court in Rose -v- Ford was correctly laid down. In that he was wrong, and he is asking the court to say that, having acted upon the basis of a mistaken view of the law, now that the law has been enunciated by the highest tribunal, he is entitled to make another attempt. That is the thing which, it seems to me, cannot be permitted on principle. It appears to me to be completely indefensible. No shadow of authority was cited to us which would justify the proposition that, where, pursuant to the rules of court, a claim has been satisfied by money paid into court by the defendant, the plaintiff can afterwards come and say: ‘I was wrongly advised as to the law when I did this, because the law was not as then laid down by the Court of Appeal, but as subsequently enunciated by the House of Lords.’ It would be an intolerable hardship on successful litigants if, in circumstances such as these, their opponents were entitled to harass them with further litigation because their view of the law had turned out to be wrong, and, unless I were constrained by binding authority, I should be quite unable, on principle, to accept any such proposition.’
Sir Wilfrid Greene MR
[1939] 2 All ER 559
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Roberts 1905
A compromise made under a mistake of law can be set aside. . .
Cited – Rose v Ford HL 1937
Damages might be recovered for a loss of expectation of life. A claim for loss of expectation of life survived under the Act of 1934, and was not a claim for damages based on the death of a person and so barred at common law.
Lord Wright . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.236527