- Contribution claims—Court of Appeal clarifies CL(C)A 1978, s 1(4) (W.H. Newson Holding v IMI)
- Practical implications
- How did the contribution issue arise in this case?
- What does CL(C)A 1978, s 1(4) provide?
- The background and authorities on CL(C)A 1978, s 1(4)
- Sir Colin Rimer's clarification of CL(C)A 1978, s 1(4)
- The concept of a 'collateral defence' (para )
- Reading CL(C) 1978, s 1 as a whole (paras –)
- How far does the 'factual basis' under CL(C) 1978, s 1(4) extend (paras –)?
- The Court of Appeal still dismissed Delta's appeal
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Sir Colin Rimer has clarified the scope of the proviso in section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (CL(C)A 1978). Thus, where a defendant (D1) has concluded a bona fide settlement with the claimant (C) then D1 can pursue a contribution claim against D2 irrespective of whether D1 was or was not liable to C, provided that D1 can show that the factual basis would have disclosed a reasonable cause of action against D1 such as to make him liable in law to C in respect of the damage. If he can do that, he will be entitled to succeed against D2. To the extent that Chadwick J in Hashim decided that the subsection permits D2 to raise an inquiry as to whether, in light of any collateral defence raised by D1 to C's claim, C would not have been actually liable to C, it was wrongly decided. This is consistent with the key drivers of the formulation of the sub-section as identified in the Law Commission Report of 1977.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial