Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Stephen Morris QC
Judgment Date11 January 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWHC 10 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: HC10C00532
CourtChancery Division
Date11 January 2012
Between:
Armstrong Dlw Gmbh
Claimant
and
Winnington Networks Ltd
Defendant

[2012] EWHC 10 (Ch)

Before:

Mr Stephen Morris QC

(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case No: HC10C00532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Luke Harris (instructed by Stephenson Harwood) for the Claimant

Victor Joffe QC (instructed by Myers & Sons Solicitors) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 October 2011

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6. 1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

Mr Stephen Morris QC

Introduction

1

In this action, commenced on 17 February 2010, the Claimant, Armstrong DLW GmbH ("Armstrong") claims relief against the Defendant, Winnington Networks Limited ("Winnington") in respect of 21,000 carbon emission allowances known as European Union Allowances ("EUAs"). On 28 January 2010 those EUAs ("the EUAs") were transferred from Armstrong's own carbon emissions account at the German Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Registry ("the German Registry") to Winnington's carbon emissions account at the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Registry ("the UK Registry"). That transfer was effected as a result of an email fraud perpetrated upon Armstrong by an unknown third party, and to which, it is accepted, Winnington was not party. The issue is which of these two parties should bear the loss for the fraud of the third party. The EUAs were immediately sold on and transferred by Winnington to a regular counterparty.

2

Armstrong now puts its claim on three alternative bases. The first two bases are said to be common law restitutionary claims: a claim to vindicate its proprietary rights in the EUAs, which I refer to as the "proprietary restitutionary claim"; and, secondly, a personal claim at law for restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment to recover the value of the EUAs. Thirdly, Armstrong brings a personal claim in equity based on Winnington's knowing (or unconscionable) receipt of the EUAs or their traceable proceeds.

Structure of this judgment

3

In this judgment I set out, first, the relevant background and, secondly, the relevant legal principles. I then make observations on the witnesses before turning to the facts in detail, making my relevant findings of fact. Finally I apply the legal principles to the facts. My conclusion is at paragraph 290 below.

Background

The Parties

4

Armstrong is a company with its registered office in Germany. It is a producer of PVC and linoleum floor coverings and is part of a group of companies owned by Armstrong World Industries Inc, a US listed company. It operates two factories in Germany—at Delmenhorst and at Bietigheim-Bissingen. Until September 2009 both factories contained power plants. Herr Heinrich Leiber is, and was at all material times, the Armstrong employee responsible for emissions trading scheme ("ETS") trading accounts. Herr Markus Bruchmann is, and was, an employee working in the IT department at Delmenhorst. Armstrong has no history of trading in EUAs.

5

Winnington is a company registered in England with a head office in Crewe. It is engaged in the business of facilitating the supply and distribution of new and high demand technology products. In addition it trades in EUAs (and in other commodities). Winnington is a member of a group of companies. The group has a turnover of approximately £50 million and employs around 30 staff. Mr Adrian John Sumnall is, and was at all material times, managing director of Winnington. Mr Neil Pursell, a certified accountant and former partner in a firm of accountants, is, and was at the time, a director of Winnington, and responsible for finance and due diligence. Mr Paul Byatt was, at the relevant time, the European purchasing manager at Winnington.

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme and EUAs

6

EUAs are the creature of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme ("ETS") established under EU law pursuant to EC Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and Council ("the ETS Directive"), as amended and supplemented by further directives and Commission regulations. The ETS was created with effect from 1 January 2005.

7

Every company (an "operator") within the EU that owns an "installation" that emits carbon dioxide above a certain minimum level must participate in the ETS. Each Member State sets a cap on its CO 2 emissions for each installation within the Member State's territory that emits CO 2 above the minimum level during each year.

8

Each operator governed by the ETS is credited with an allocation of EUAs at the beginning of the compliance year. By Article 3 of the ETS Directive, an "allowance" (an EUA) means an allowance to emit one tonne of CO 2 during a specified period, which shall be valid only for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the ETS Directive and is transferable in accordance with the provisions of the ETS Directive. This credit of EUAs is made into a registry account, known as the Operator Holding Account, for each installation. This is an electronic account set up in the national registry in the relevant Member State.

9

Each operator governed by the ETS must monitor its CO 2 emissions at its installations. At the end of a compliance year, an external audit of the operator's CO 2 emissions is carried out. This audit determines the level of CO 2 emitted by the operator during the year and how many EUAs this represents. The operator of each installation must then submit to the national administrator of the ETS the correct number of EUAs to match its emissions in the relevant compliance year.

10

If an operator does not submit enough EUAs to meet its compliance obligations, it will be fined for every tonne of CO 2 it has emitted beyond its submission of EUAs.

11

Any surplus of EUAs held by the operator after it has met its compliance obligations may be carried forward to the following year. Armstrong's practice has been to retain any surplus EUAs it holds. EUAs can also be "retired" by arrangement with the relevant national administrating entity without being used to meet compliance emission reduction targets.

Trading in EUAs

12

Pursuant to Article 12 ETS Directive, companies may, if they wish, trade the EUAs they have been credited with during the compliance year, provided that, at the end of the year, the company has enough EUAs to cover its emissions for that year. Trading in EUAs is not confined to companies with compliance obligations and, subject to Member State rules, anyone can open a registry account in a Member State registry in order to engage in trading in EUAs, without also being an operator. Such a person is referred to as a "trader". A trade of an EUA is formally completed when an EUA is transferred from one registry account to another. Trades are regularly executed by the transfer of EUAs to and from different registry accounts in different Member States.

Registries and accounts

13

Regulation 2216/2004 ("the Registries Regulation") provides for the establishment of inter-connected electronic registries in Member States for the trading of EUAs. Each installation and each trader has an account with one of the national registries. Each person with an account in a registry may have one or more authorised representative, who is a natural person who can access the registry and carry out transfers. The national registry issues to each such authorised representative a username and password: see Article 66 of the Registries Regulation. (Article 66(2) itself envisages the possibility of the security of the password having become compromised). The user name and password are required to effect any transfer of the EUAs.

14

In addition, the UK national registry imposes an additional security requirement. Each authorised representative is required to install a digital certificate on to the particular PC that he uses for access to the secure part of the registry. In this way, if a third party obtained the username and password of a particular authorised representative, he would not be able to use that information to access the account, unless he was able also to use the authorised representative's own PC for access to the registry. At the relevant times, the German Registry did not have such a requirement. In present case, both Mr Sumnall and Mr Pursell were authorised representatives who had access to Winnington's registry account. This is addressed further in paragraph 137 below.

15

Each account with a national registry has a unique account number. Within that number, there is a designation which indicates the Member State in question: for example, DE designates the German Registry and GB designates the UK Registry. Further there are different numerical designations depending upon whether the account is in the name of an operator or a trader, the former being designated by the number 120 and the latter by the number 121.

16

All trades in EUAs take place via and are logged through a central EU Community Independent Transaction Log ("CITL") established under Article 5 of the Registries Regulation. Armstrong says the CITL is open to the public and can be searched to find out various accounts and transaction details. In particular, if one has the account number of a company's registry account, the identity of the account holder can be found out simply by searching the CITL website.

The nature of an EUA

17

EUAs are entirely electronic. They only exist online in national registries. There is no title document or other physical evidence of their existence. However, each EUA has its own individual number and is easily identifiable. If an EUA is sold, it is simply removed from the registry account of one operator or trader and added to that of another operator or trader.

Armstrong's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Group Seven Ltd and Another v Ali Nasir and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 6 October 2017
    ...avoid those of definition and allocation to which the previous categorisations have led." 477 Akindele was considered in Armstrong GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2013] Ch 156 where it was said at [132]: "132 In my judgment, the position, in a commercial context, can be summarised as foll......
  • AA v Persons Unknown
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 13 December 2019
    ...v Dairywise Farms Ltd[2000] 1 WLR 1177, the court held that a milk quota could be the subject of a trust; and in Armstrong v Winnington[2013] Ch 156, the court held that an EU carbon emissions allowance could be the subject of a tracing claim as a form of “other intangible property”, even t......
  • Devon Commercial Property Ltd v Robert Adrian Barnett
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 26 March 2019
    ...This passage was approved by Clarke LJ on appeal, and has been applied more recently in Armstrong DLW GmbH v Willington Networks Ltd [2013] Ch 156, [107] (Stephen Morris QC), and O'Neil v Gale [2013] EWHC 644 (Ch), [44] (David Donaldson QC), both also restitution cases where good faith in ......
  • The Serious Fraud Office v Litigation Capital Ltd (a company incorporated in the Marshall Islands) and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 18 May 2021
    ...to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable person would make: Lewin, 44–126. This was the approach adopted in Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch); [2013] Ch 156, [114], [123] by reference to the five types of knowledge identified by Peter Gibson J in B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • From cryptic to (some) clarity: English law and policy rising to the challenge of cryptoassets
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 10 June 2022
    ...in order to help locate the miss ing assets and identify the w rongdoers. 1See Armstrong D LW GmbH v Winnington N etworks Ltd [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), [2013] Ch 156 [58], [94].2[2014] EWCA Civ 281, [2015] QB 41 [42]3Examples of d ecisions in whic h the English cour t treated crypto currencies a......
  • Solving the crypto-crossword: UK developments in the legal and regulatory treatment of cryptoassets
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 2 March 2020
    ...an essential part of the decision in the case in question. 9 Legal Statement, paragraph 86(a) 10 Armstrong v Winnington [2012] EWHC 10, [2013] Ch 156 11 Dairy Swift v Dairywise Farms Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 1177 12 Legal Statement, paragraph 45 Solving the Crypto-Crossword | 2020 4 © Allen & Overy......
  • Solving the Crypto-Crossword
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 25 February 2020
    ...is not an essential part of the decision in the case in question. Legal Statement, paragraph 86(a) Armstrong v Winnington [2012] EWHC 10, [2013] Ch 156 Dairy Swift v Dairywise Farms Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 1177 Legal Statement, paragraph 45 Legal Statement, paragraph 60 See for instance “Disposals......
  • From Cryptic to (Some) Clarity: English Law and Policy Rising to the Challenge of Cryptoassets (Part 1)
    • United Kingdom
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • 4 May 2022
    ...in the UK on Proskauer’s Blockchain and the Law blog, so watch this space! [1] See Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), [2013] Ch 156 [58], [94]. [2] [2014] EWCA Civ 281, [2015] QB 41 [42] [3] Examples of decisions in which the English court treated cryptocurren......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • UNAUTHORISED FIDUCIARY GAINS AND THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...protection of the principal's property right. See Foskett v McKeown[2001] 1 AC 102 at 127 and Armstrong GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd[2013] Ch 156 at [103]. See also Elise Bant, The Change of Position Defence (Hart Publishing, 2009) at pp 170–172. The case of Re Diplock[1948] Ch 465, which......
  • Dishonest Assistance and Accessory Liability
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 80-1, January 2017
    • 1 January 2017
    ...onlyaffected at ‘the point at which he could reasonably be required to have acted’.79 In Armstrong DLW GmbH vWinnington Networks Ltd [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), [2013] Ch 156at [277]-[286], Morris QC placed significance on the fact that the defendants had ‘behaved ina “commercially unacceptable” ma......
  • Restitution
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...important observations on the point. First, the court, not following the English case of Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd[2013] Ch 156, was not prepared to characterise Lipkin Gorman as a clear instance of proprietary restitutionary claim, because of express language of unjust e......
  • What is unjust about theft?
    • South Africa
    • Acta Juridica No. , December 2019
    • 24 December 2019
    ...faith purchaser without notice of the owner’s legal rights. 54 Foskett (n 31) 128. See also Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2013] Ch 156 at 192.55 J Tarrant ‘The theft principle in pr ivate law’ (2016) 80 Australian Law Journal 531; J Tarrant ‘Thieves as trustees: In defence o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT