Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd
The House of Lords departed from an earlier decision to allow judgments in foreign currency, but rebuked the Court of Appeal for refusing to follow it.
Facts
Mr Miliangos, a Swiss supplier, sold polyester yarn to an English company, which did not pay. He sued for the price, which was payable in Swiss francs. Under Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd [1961] AC 1007, an English court could give judgment only in sterling, converted at the exchange rate when the debt fell due. Because sterling had fallen sharply against the Swiss franc, this would leave Mr Miliangos much worse off. In an earlier case, Schorsch Meier GmbH v Hennin [1975] QB 416, the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Denning, had refused to follow the Havana Railways decision.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that an English court could give judgment in a foreign currency, departing from Havana Railways under the 1966 Practice Statement because economic circumstances had changed since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates. However, the House strongly criticised the Court of Appeal for refusing to follow a decision of the House of Lords in Schorsch Meier. Lord Wilberforce said that it was not for the Court of Appeal to decide that a decision of the House of Lords was no longer binding.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
