The second of the two Court of Appeal judgments to catch my eye today is Tuke v Hood [2022] EWCA Civ 23. In this case, the court unanimously rejected the argument that, in a computation of damages where the victim of a fraudster was to be compensated, the victim was obliged to give credit to the fraudster not only for the cash received (as part of the fraudulent transaction) but also for the 'time value' of that money for the period between the transaction and the trial.
The argument was rejected for several reasons, including policy: as Lord Justice Coulson stated, in agreeing with the lead judgment delivered by Lady Justice Andrews, "the suggestion that a fraudster could reduce his or her ultimate liability to the victim by obtaining credit for the 'time value' of the money, would only encourage the fraudster to hide the deception for as long as possible. That is not the law" (para. [62]).
No comments:
Post a Comment