Faced with the problem that arises where multiple innocent claimants have contributed to a mixed fund that is now insufficient to meet all of their claims, English and Australian courts have suggested three solutions: (i) the rule in Clayton's Case; (ii) the ‘simple pari passu’ approach; and (iii) the ‘rolling charge’ or ‘North American’ approach. In Caron v Jahani (No 2) the New South Wales Court of Appeal adopted a simplified version of the third solution: the ‘simplified rolling charge’ approach. In doing so, the Court demonstrated that once the rule in Clayton's Case is (rightly) discarded, what remains is not simply a binary choice between the second and third solutions. We argue that English courts should revisit their approach to the problem posed at the outset by jettisoning the rule in Clayton's Case and by adopting the simplified rolling charge approach.

中文翻译：

---

追踪，混合和无辜索偿人

面对由多个无辜的索偿人向混合基金供款而引起的问题，该基金现已不足以满足其所有索偿，英国和澳大利亚法院提出了三种解决方案：（i）克莱顿案的规则；（ii）“简单的同等权益”方法；（iii）“滚动收费”或“北美”方法。在Caron诉Jahani案（第2号）中，新南威尔士州上诉法院采用了第三个解决方案的简化版本：“简化的滚动收费”方法。这样，法院证明了克莱顿案中的规则被（正确地）丢弃，剩下的不只是第二种解决方案和第三种解决方案之间的二元选择。我们认为，英国法院应通过抛弃克莱顿案中的规则并采用简化的滚动收费方法，重新审视其对一开始提出的问题的处理方式。