Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| 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| Text of statute as originally enacted | |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.
The act repealed the relevant common law and made new provision for contribution between persons who are jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the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
[edit]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.
External links
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b The citation of this Act by this short title is authorised by section 8(1) of this Act.
- ^ Section 8.
 | This legislation in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |