||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 370 (Mar)
Michael Briggs QC siting as a deputy judge of the High Court
||Sonia Tolaney (instructed by Allen & Overy) for the claimant.
||Lexa Hilliard (instructed by Taylor Johnson Garrett) for the defendant.
||22 March 2002
Chose in action - Assignment - Rights included in chose in action - Parties executing assignment agreement - Defendant subsequently assigning tranches of principal received from claimant to third party - Third party assigning part of defendant's debt to other party - Claimant claiming defendant's assignment in breach of trust and implied terms of assignment agreement - Whether defendant in breach of trust - Whether defendant in breach of implied terms of assignment agreement.
It was well-established that any predicated implied term would be required to satisfy both the general test of necessity, and the more specific officious bystander test which applied where the implied term was said to arise as part of the particular contract in question, rather than as being an incident of a particular class of contract. In the instant case, the claimant's claim that the subsequent assignment of the chose in action was in breach of the implied terms of the assignment agreement would be rejected as there was no evidence of any common practice or perception giving rise to such implied terms.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary