Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Derek WhaymanORCiD
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria [2014] UKSC 10, [2014] AC 1189 may have been comprehensively argued by the bench, but it was framed as a case of statutory interpretation. Indeed any judge would have little alternative. But the better analysis is going behind this to determine why the Statutes of Limitation were drafted as they were. The most likely explanation is that the Real Property Limitation Act 1833 attempted to completely codify limitation in equity, but did so before personal liability in what is now called dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and trusteeship de son tort had emerged. The resulting lacunae in the Act led to nearly a century of struggle, which resulted in considerable analysis of the underlying liabilities. This allows not only a better understanding of Williams, but also much more. One example is the limitation rules for account of profits claims. Another is the distinction between knowing receipt and trusteeship de son tort. The latter were distinct at the point of creation. Moreover, rather than being developed towards a merger, they developed apart. The latter has more in common with ad-hoc or fact-based fiduciaries than accessory liability.
Author(s): Whayman D
Publication type: Conference Proceedings (inc. Abstract)
Publication status: Published
Conference Name: Society of Legal Scholars' Annual Conference
Year of Conference: 2022
Acceptance date: 02/04/2022
