Chose in Action in UK Law

On the contrary that chose in action is extinguished or reduced pro tanto, and a chose in action is brought into existence representing a debt in an equivalent sum owed by a different bank to the defendant or his solicitor. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the defendant thereby obtained property belonging to another, i.e. to the lending institution.

But (like Sir John Smith — see his commentary on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the present case [1995] Crim.L.R. 564) I find difficulty in conceiving that in either case section 15 applies where, as here, the solicitor receives the money in his capacity as agent of the lending institution, in circumstances in which the lending institution retains control over the money while in his (the solicitor's) hands and can require it to be repaid at any time.

I turn next to the release of the money by the solicitor, with the lending institution's authority, to the vendor's solicitor in the form of a banker's draft. Presumably the solicitor's bank will debit the solicitor's general account with the amount of the draft, and in due course the solicitor will effect an adjustment in his own accounts as between his client account and his general account.

In my judgment, the Court has to do (assuming that the Plaintiff has established negligence) In such a case as the present, is to determine what the Plaintiff has by that negligence lost. The question is, has the Plaintiff lost some right of value, some chose in action of reality and substance? in such a case it may be that its value is not easy to determine, but it is the duty of the Court to determine that value as best it can.

The contractual right to receive payment of a debt is an item of property, that is to say, a chose in action. It can be transferred by the creditor to a third party but the validity of the transfer necessarily depends upon the lex situs because the Courts of the country where the debt is have jurisdiction over the title to it.

My Lords, I agree that a chose in action is property, something capable of being turned into money. The existence of a remedy or remedies is an essential condition for the existence of the chose in action but that does not mean that the remedies are property in themselves, capable of assignment separately from the chose. If he does, he necessarily acquires whatever remedies are available to recover the money or the part which has been assigned to him.

As I have said already, the right to a remedy is an incident of the ownership of the chose. The remedy is not something that is capable of being sold or assigned separately from the right to which it relates.