Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION TO CLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION
Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim
The question whether claims for contribution brought by a defendant (“D”) against a fellow-wrongdoer1 (the respondent to the contribution claim, “R”) are governed by English or foreign law, is unexpectedly problematic. The complications come in many varieties when the issue is less than wholly connected to England and English law. A nice one arose in Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim.2 The AMF3 had sued one Hashim, its former Director-General,4 for fraud. It also sued certain banks,5 alleging that they had dishonestly
1. Who may or may not also be a defendant to a claim against him by P. In the present case, Hashim was sued by the Fund as defendant, and claimed against by the banks as respondent to a contribution claim.
2. (29 July 1994) Unreported. This Comment does not address the other point of interest, namely the conclusion of the judge that in deciding whether conduct carried on overseas could be sued on in England as dishonest assistance of a breach of trust, the appropriate choice of law rule was one of double actionability, essentially the same as that applied at common law to tortious conduct committed overseas. Whether this is correct in relation to such, or any, quasi-contractual or restitutionary claim is unclear (but it is unprecedented). Nor is it clear how (if at all) it is affected by the inadequately-thought-out Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (as to which see [1995] LMCLQ 519).
3. An international organization established in Dubai under the law of the United Arab Emirates. For the decision that it had personality to enable it to sue, see Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No. 3) [1991] 2 A.C. 114.
4. Probably an Iraqi; but having no material connection with England during the period of his office.
5. American and overseas associates.
437