Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
KNOWING RECEIPT AND DISHONEST ASSISTANCE: A WRONG TURN
Dubai Aluminium Co. Ltd v. Salaam
“Knowing receipt” claims have been the subject of much debate and controversy in recent times.1 Two main areas of debate can be identified. The first, and more general, is that this category of claim is restitutionary in nature and, when viewed within that context, it is anomalous, given the requirement of knowledge on the part of the recipient as compared with the generally accepted approach of strict liability in law of unjust enrichment.2 Secondly, there is a degree of conflict as to the appropriate level of knowledge which suffices for liability in this category3: some contending that only the first three levels of
1. The literature on this topic is vast. See generally, Lord Nicholls, “Knowing Receipt: The Need for a New Landmark”, Chap. 15 of W.R. Cornish et al. (eds), Restitution, Past, Present & Future (Hart Publishing, 1998); Simon Gardner, “Knowing Assistance and Knowing Receipt: Taking Stock” (1996) 112 L.Q.R. 56; P. B. H. Birks, Restitution—The Future (Federation Press, 1992), Chap. 2; C. Harpum, “The Basis of Equitable Liability”, Chap. 1 of P. Birks (ed.), Frontiers of Liability, Vol. 1 (1994); Gerard McCormack, Proprietary Claims and Insolvency (Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), Chap. 10; A. J. Oakley, Constructive Trusts, 3rd edn (Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), 222–238.
2. Birks, Restitution—The Future, 26–42.
3. The conflict is admirably summarized in Oakley, Constructive Trusts, 3rd edn 227–234.
343