Reading v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Porter,Lord Normand,Lord Oaksey,Lord Radcliffe |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1951 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1951] UKHL J0301-2 |
| Date | 01 March 1951 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1951] UKHL J0301-2
Lord Chancellor
Lord Porter
Lord Normand
Lord Oaksey
Lord Radcliffe
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel as well on Monday the 15th, as on Tuesday the 16th, days of January last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Charles Henry Reading, of 9 Daidalos Street, Nicosia, Cyprus, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 19th of May 1949, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed case of His Majesty's Attorney-General (on behalf of His Majesty the King) lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 19th day of May 1949, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House.
My Lords,
The Lord Chancellor, who is unable to be present today, asks me to say that he concurs in the opinion I am about to deliver.
My Lords,
This is an Appeal from an Order of the Court of Appeal dated the 19th May, 1949, affirming the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Denning (as he then was), and ordering that the Suppliant's Appeal from the said judgment be dismissed with costs to be paid by the Suppliant to the Crown or its Solicitor, such costs to be taxed by a Taxing Master.
In 1944 and 1945 certain sums, all in Egyptian currency, amounting in all to £E18,842.105, equivalent to £19,325 4s. 8d. in sterling, and held by or on behalf of the Suppliant, were seized and taken into possession on behalf of His Majesty.
By Petition of Right presented on the 1st November, 1946, the Suppliant sought to recover these sums or their sterling equivalent (allowance being made for sums released to him), as money had and received by His Majesty to his use.
The Respondent admitted that these sums had been seized and taken into possession on behalf of His Majesty but alleged that they represented part of the proceeds of bribery and that the Suppliant was accountable therefor to His Majesty and received and held them in trust for His Majesty. Alternatively he claimed that the Respondent was entitled to set them off against the Suppliant's Claim.
The facts proved or agreed in the Action are not in dispute and may succinctly be stated substantially in the form adopted by the Appellant in his case and are as follows:—
(A) In 1943 and 1944 the Appellant was a Sergeant in the Royal Army Medical Corps and receiving pay at the rate appropriate to his Rank. He was employed as a Sergeant in charge of medical stores at No. 63 General Hospital, Cairo.
The Appellant's Case also alleges that at all material times it was obligatory for all service personnel in Cairo to wear uniform, except when engaged in sport or other specially excepted activity. I can find no evidence to this effect but regard the allegation as immaterial to the decision which your Lordships are asked to reach.
In these circumstances Denning, J., held that the Crown was entitled to the money in question. It was, in his view, immaterial to consider whether the method of seizure was justified or not. Even if it was not, the Crown had a valid counterclaim and, avoiding a circuity of action, could thus defeat the Appellant's claim. "It is", he says, "a claim for restitution of moneys which, in justice, ought to be paid over." It was suggested in argument that the learned judge founded his decision solely upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment and that that doctrine was not recognised by the law of England. My Lords, the exact status of the law of unjust enrichment is not yet assured. It holds a predominant place in the law of Scotland and, I think, of the United States, but I am content for the purposes of this case to accept the view that it forms no part of the law of England and that a right to restitution so described would be too widely stated. But, indeed, this doctrine is not of the essence of Denning, J.'s, judgment. His reasoning is to be found in the passage which succeeds that quoted. He says:
"In my judgment, it is a principle of law that if a servant takes advantage of his service by violating his duty of honesty and good faith, to make a profit for himself, in this sense, that the assets of which he has control, or the facilities which he enjoys, or the position which he occupies, are the real cause of his obtaining the money, as distinct from being the mere opportunity for getting it, that is to say, if they play the predominant part in his obtaining the money, then he is accountable for it to the master. It matters not that the master has not lost any profit, nor suffered any damage. Nor does it matter that the master could not have done the act himself. It is a case where the servant has unjustly enriched himself by virtue of his service without his master's sanction. It is money which the servant ought not to be allowed to keep, and the law says it shall be taken from him and given to his master, because he got it solely by reason of the position which he occupied as a servant of his master."
And again, "The uniform of the Crown, and the position of the man as a servant of the Crown were the sole reasons why he was able to get this money, and that is sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lee Mun Foong v PP
-
Pertamina v Kartika Ratna Thahir and Others
... ... The crux of the defence is in para 10 of the defence. Before I come to it, there is one general observation that I want to make here on the defence. I agree with Mr Sherrard for the plaintiffs ... To support the view I express, I refer to the case of Re Reading`s Petition of Right [1949] 2 All ER 68. In this case, a sergeant in the army stationed in Cairo on ... ...
-
Sanctuary Systems Ltd and Palmyra Properties Ltd v Dennis Hughes Constanzo and Others
...learning from Hovenden in that way, he submits, then it does not fall afoul of the authority in AG for Hong Kong . 54 Reading v. AG [1951] 1 All E.R. 617, a decision of the House of Lords, is authority for the proposition that the irrebutable presumption applies irrespective of the fact th......
- Tengku Abdullah Ibni Sultan Abu Bakar and Others v Mohd Latiff Shah Mohd and Others & Other Appeals
-
Formalize your arrangements, don't rely on a love affair
...trust. After considering UK cases including HMRC v Holland [2010] 1 WLR 2793, Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd [1994] BCC 161 and Reading v AG [1951] AC 507 and without the benefit of submissions and evidence from the defendants, the trial judge held that the Mr Bayram was acting in the role of a de......
-
ISSUES CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
...(28) The Australian, 11th November, 1998. (29) The Times, 28th August, 1999. (30) [1998] 1 Cr App R 331 (CA). (31) [1929] KB 743. (32) [1951] AC 507. (33) [1994] 1 AC 324. (34) Rule 27(20), Dicey and Morris, 12th ed, p. 348. (35) See Law Commission Report 'Criminal Law Jurisdiction over Off......
-
Class Reunion: Revisiting Class Action Justification After Twenty Years
...case, the defendant Edwards discovered a 110 McCamus & Maddaugh, above note 12 at para 24:300, 24-19, citing Reading v Attorney General, [1951] AC 507 (HL) and Attorney General v Blake, [2001] 1 AC 268 (HL) as precedents of accounting in breaches of fiduciary duty and contract. For a simila......
-
A History of Class Actions: Modern Lessons From Deep Roots
...case, the defendant Edwards discovered a 110 McCamus & Maddaugh, above note 12 at para 24:300, 24-19, citing Reading v Attorney General, [1951] AC 507 (HL) and Attorney General v Blake, [2001] 1 AC 268 (HL) as precedents of accounting in breaches of fiduciary duty and contract. For a simila......
-
Palpable and Overriding Confusion: Appellate Review of Certification Orders in Canada
...case, the defendant Edwards discovered a 110 McCamus & Maddaugh, above note 12 at para 24:300, 24-19, citing Reading v Attorney General, [1951] AC 507 (HL) and Attorney General v Blake, [2001] 1 AC 268 (HL) as precedents of accounting in breaches of fiduciary duty and contract. For a simila......