Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

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The act repealed the relevant common law and made new provision for contribution between persons who are jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the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).

Before the 1930s, a common law rule existed forbidding claims of contribution between joint tortfeasors, albeit with some exceptions to the general rule. In 1934, the Law Revision Committee argued for altering the common law rule to allow for claims of contribution between tortfeasors.^[2] Parliament enacted the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935 (and amended Northern Irish law to the same extent through the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937) in response to these recommendations.^[3]

In the 1957 case of McConnell v Lynch-Robinson, an owner of a house sued an architect over defects. The architect sought to have the building contractor added as a party over his contribution to the damage. The Northern Irish Court of Appeal refused to allow this application as he was not a tortfeasor under the 1937 law.^[2] The Law Commission considered this unsatisfactory and recommended that both the English and Northern Irish laws extend the rules on contribution to cover cases where damage is caused in non-tort contexts (including breaches of contract, trust or other duties).^[4]

The act applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.^[5]

Barrister Daniel Atkinson describes the act as "complicated" and noted for "difficulties of analysis".^[6]

In Mouchel Ltd v Van Oord (UK) Ltd (No 2)^[7] it was held that "contribution" is not limited to a contribution in respect of damages. In Birse Construction Ltd v Haiste Ltd.,^[8] Roch LJ pointed out that the word in section 1(1) of the Act "is 'damage', not 'damages', and the two things are quite different. Damages are the financial compensation for the damage, whatever it is that is sustained".^[9]

In Rahman v Arearose Ltd^[10] 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 by the High Court in Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd.^[11]

In Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH,^[12] the Supreme Court held that the Act did not have extra-territorial effect.

The Court of Appeal considered issues raised by the legislation in City Index v Gawler,^[13] finding that "knowing receipt" of fraudulently obtained money could fall within the scope of the s1(1) definition.^[14][15]