Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
INSURANCE PAYMENTS (MIS)DIRECTED, EQUITABLE MAXIMS (MIS)USED, AND RESTITUTION DOCTRINES MISSED
Shanahan v. Redmond
1. Introduction
A donor retains the services of a professional to ensure that the plaintiff will get certain of the donor’s property, but the professional directs it instead to the recipient. The intended beneficiary, the plaintiff, has lost and the recipient has gained by virtue of the actions of the professional. In principle, the plaintiff can sue the professional in tort for negligence; it may be that he can in the alternative sue the recipient in restitution.
The negligence action is secure at least since the House of Lords’ decision in White v. Jones
1 Commenting on that case, Weir suggested that a better solution would be provided by an action based upon the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, by which the plaintiff could sue the recipient directly.2 Similarly, a contemporary Irish
1. [1995] 2 A.C. 207 (H.L.). Cf. Ross v. Caunters [1980] Ch. 297 (Megarry, V.-C.); Gartside v. Sheffield Young and Ellis [1983] N.Z.L.R. 37 (N.Z.C.A.); Hawkins v. Clayton (1989) 164 C.L.R. 539 (H.C.A.).
2. Weir, “A Damnosa Heriditas?” (1995) 111 L.Q.R. 357.
197