Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Last updated

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 [1]
Act of Parliament
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (variant 1, 1952-2022).svg
Long title An Act to make new provision for contribution between persons who are jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage and in certain other similar cases where two or more persons have paid or may be required to pay compensation for the same damage; and to amend the law relating to proceedings against persons jointly liable for the same debt or jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage.
Citation 1978 c. 47
Dates
Royal assent 31 July 1978
Commencement 1 January 1979
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 [1] (c. 47) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Contents

The act repealed the relevant common law and made new provision for contribution between persons who are jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage and in certain other similar cases where two or more persons have paid or may be required to pay compensation for the same damage; and to amend the law relating to proceedings against persons jointly liable for the same debt or jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage.

The core principle of the act is set out in section 1(1):

Subject to the following provisions ... any person liable in respect of any damage suffered by another person may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly with him or otherwise).

The act applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. [2]

Interpretation

In Mouchel Ltd v Van Oord (UK) Ltd (No 2) [2011] EWHC 1516(TCC) it was held that "contribution" is not limited to a contribution in respect of damages.

In Rahman v Arearose Ltd [2001] QB 351 it was held that the "same damage" meant the kind of indivisible injury as arises under common law in a case of concurrent torts. This was affirmed in Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd [2009] EWHC 254(Comm).

In Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29 , [2022] 3 WLR 1111 the Supreme Court held that the Act did not have extra-territorial effect.

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

The defence of property is a common method of justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property.

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual fiduciary relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act on behalf of another to create legal relations with a third party. Succinctly, it may be referred to as the equal relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under their control and on their behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring them and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:

A guarantee is a form of transaction in which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for another, engages to be answerable for them. It may also designate a treaty through which claims, rights or possessions are secured. It is to be differentiated from the colloquial "personal guarantee" in that a guarantee is a legal concept which produces an economic effect. A personal guarantee by contrast is often used to refer to a promise made by an individual which is supported by, or assured through, the word of the individual. In the same way, a guarantee produces a legal effect wherein one party affirms the promise of another by promising to themselves pay if default occurs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">General partnership</span> Basic form of partnership under common law

A general partnership, the basic form of partnership under common law, is in most countries an association of persons or an unincorporated company with the following major features:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be:

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compensation Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Compensation Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced in response to concerns about a growing compensation culture but conversely to ensure that the public received dependable service from claims management companies. In introducing the Bill, Baroness Ashton said that it was intended "to tackle perceptions that can lead to a disproportionate fear of litigation and risk averse behaviour; to find ways to discourage and resist bad claims; and to improve the system for those with a valid claim for compensation."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpretation Act 1978</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Interpretation Act 1978 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act makes provision for the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, Measures of the General Synod of the Church of England, Measures of the Church Assembly, subordinate legislation, "deeds and other instruments and documents", Acts of the Scottish Parliament and instruments made thereunder, and Measures and Acts of the National Assembly for Wales and instruments made thereunder. The Act makes provision in relation to: the construction of certain words and phrases, words of enactment, amendment or repeal of Acts in the Session they were passed, judicial notice, commencement, statutory powers and duties, the effect of repeals, and duplicated offences.

<i>Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd</i> 2002 English tort law case

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard.

<i>Barker v Corus (UK) plc</i> House of Lords decision

Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] UKHL 20 is a notable House of Lords decision in the area of industrial liability in English tort law, which deals with the area of causation. In this case, the House of Lords reconsidered its ruling in the earlier landmark case Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd concerning the liability of multiple tortfeasors.

Occupiers' liability is a field of tort law, codified in statute, which concerns the duty of care owed by those who occupy real property, through ownership or lease, to people who visit or trespass. It deals with liability that may arise from accidents caused by the defective or dangerous condition of the premises. In English law, occupiers' liability towards visitors is regulated in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. In addition, occupiers' liability to trespassers is provided under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Although the law largely codified the earlier common law, the difference between a "visitor" and a "trespasser", and the definition of an "occupier" continue to rely on cases for their meaning.

United Kingdom partnership law concerns the way that partnerships are formed or governed within the United Kingdom. Depending upon where the partnership was formed, English law, Scots law or Northern Irish law may apply in addition to statutes that create a framework across the UK. Under Scots law a partnership is a distinct legal entity and can borrow money from a bank in the name of the partnership, while English law only allows borrowing in the names of individual partners. Partnerships are a form of business association, which arises automatically when people carry on business with a view to a profit. Partners are jointly and severally liable, just as they own the property in common.

<i>Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd</i>

Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd[1956] UKHL 6 is an important English tort law, contract law and labour law, which concerns vicarious liability and an ostensible duty of an employee to compensate the employer for torts he commits in the course of employment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Partnership Act 1890</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Partnership Act 1890 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which governs the rights and duties of people or corporate entities conducting business in partnership. A partnership is defined in the act as 'the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.'

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African company law</span> Regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act

South African company law is that body of rules which regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act. A company is a business organisation which earns income by the production or sale of goods or services. This entry also covers rules by which partnerships and trusts are governed in South Africa, together with cooperatives and sole proprietorships.

<i>Williams v Hensman</i> English trusts law case

Williams v Hensman (1861) is an English trusts law case.

<i>Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd</i> Multiple employers, vicarious liability for workers

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd[2005] EWCA Civ 1151 is an English tort law and UK labour law case, which held that a worker can have more than one employer at the same time, who will be vicariously liable for the worker.

<i>VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp</i> 2013 English company law case

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp[2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud.

References

  1. 1 2 The citation of this Act by this short title is authorised by section 8(1) of this Act.
  2. Section 8.