The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the
English law
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures.
Principal elements of English law
Although the common law has, historically, be ...
of obligations, along with the law of
contract
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to tran ...
,
tort
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable ...
, and
trusts
A trust is a legal relationship in which the holder of a right gives it to another person or entity who must keep and use it solely for another's benefit. In the Anglo-American common law, the party who entrusts the right is known as the "settl ...
. The law of
unjust enrichment
In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make res ...
deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make
restitution
The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to ''give up'' their gains to the claimant. It should be contrasted with the law of compensation, the law of loss-based recovery, in which a court o ...
of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
The modern law of unjust enrichment encompasses what was once known as the law of
quasi-contract
A quasi-contract (or implied-in-law contract or constructive contract) is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi Contra ...
. Its precise scope remains a matter of controversy. Beyond quasi-contract, it is sometimes said to encompass the law relating to
subrogation,
contribution, recoupment, and claims to the
traceable substitutes of misapplied property.
English courts have recognised that there are four steps required to establish a claim in unjust enrichment.
If the following elements are satisfied, a claimant has a
prima facie
''Prima facie'' (; ) is a Latin expression meaning ''at first sight'' or ''based on first impression''. The literal translation would be 'at first face' or 'at first appearance', from the feminine forms of ''primus'' ('first') and ''facies'' (' ...
right to
restitution
The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to ''give up'' their gains to the claimant. It should be contrasted with the law of compensation, the law of loss-based recovery, in which a court o ...
:
# the defendant has been ''enriched'';
# this enrichment is ''at the claimant's expense'';
# this enrichment at the claimant's expense is ''unjust''; and
# there is no applicable bar or defence.
The law of unjust enrichment is among the most unsettled areas of
English law
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures.
Principal elements of English law
Although the common law has, historically, be ...
. Its existence as a separate body of law was only explicitly recognised in 1991 in ''
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence ...
''.
[.] While the law has rapidly developed over the last three decades, controversy continues over the precise structure, scope and nature of the law of unjust enrichment.
Background
History
The notion of an obligation to make restitution of benefits received at another's expense can be traced back to Roman law. Its history in English law can be traced to the
form of action
The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery (or file a bill) which would set in ...
known as ''indebitatus assumpsit''. From this action came the 'common money counts'. Of present relevance are the following:
*
an action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use;
* an action for money paid to the defendant's use;
* ''quantum meruit'' (that is, a claim for reasonable remuneration for services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant); and
* ''quantum valebat'' (that is, a claim for the reasonable value of goods provided by the plaintiff to the defendant).
During the course of the 18th and 19th centuries the law of contract, the law of tort and the law of trusts emerged as discrete bodies of law within English private law. As many thought they covered the field, restitutionary claims as embodied in the common money counts were appended to the law of contract. The various claims were termed '
quasi-contract
A quasi-contract (or implied-in-law contract or constructive contract) is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi Contra ...
ual'. This was because it was often necessary to plead that the defendant had promised to repay a debt, even though the promise was fictitious and the debt was imposed by the law. As recently as 1951 the
House of Lords
The House of Lords, also known as the House of Peers, is the Bicameralism, upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Membership is by Life peer, appointment, Hereditary peer, heredity or Lords Spiritual, official function. Like the ...
held that: "My Lords, the exact status of the law of unjust enrichment is not yet assured. It holds a predominant place in the law of Scotland and, I think, the United States, but I am content for the purposes of this case to accept the view that it forms no part of the law of England..."
While restitutionary obligations were not enforced solely through these quasi-contractual claims, the law of quasi-contract constitutes the core of the modern law of unjust enrichment. A seminal case is ''
Moses v Macferlan
''Moses v Macferlan'' (1760) 2 Bur 1005 is a foundational case in the law of restitution holding that in certain circumstances such as when money is paid by mistake, for failed consideration or under oppression; the law will allow the money to be ...
'' (1760) 2 Burr 1005.
Perhaps more than any other area of the common law, the law of unjust enrichment has been shaped by academic writing, particularly by that of jurists from
Oxford
Oxford () is a city in England. It is the county town and only city of Oxfordshire. In 2020, its population was estimated at 151,584. It is north-west of London, south-east of Birmingham and north-east of Bristol. The city is home to the ...
and
Cambridge
Cambridge ( ) is a university city and the county town in Cambridgeshire, England. It is located on the River Cam approximately north of London. As of the 2021 United Kingdom census, the population of Cambridge was 145,700. Cambridge bec ...
. Of course, the law did not develop in a vacuum: the
American Law Institute
The American Law Institute (ALI) is a research and advocacy group of judges, lawyers, and legal scholars established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of United States common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. ...
drafted a ''
Restatement of the Law of Restitution Restatement may refer to:
*Restatements of the Law, published by the American Law Institute as scholarly refinements of black letter law; these include:
** Restatement of Contracts, Second, completed by the American Law Institute in 1979
* Restatem ...
'' in 1937. The
first major practitioner text in England appeared in 1966, written by
Robert Goff and
Gareth Jones. It was Robert Goff (by this time
Lord Goff
Robert Lionel Archibald Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley, (12 November 1926 – 14 August 2016) was an English barrister and judge who was Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, the equivalent of today's President of the Supreme Court. Best known for ...
) who gave the leading judgment in ''
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence ...
'' over two decades later.
Professor Peter Birks was instrumental in promoting the autonomy of unjust enrichment within the law of obligations in his seminal work ''Introduction to the Law of Restitution.'' Academic writing continues to be heavily cited by the highest courts, particularly the more recent work of
Professor Andrew Burrows and
Professor Graham Virgo, as well as modern editions of ''Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment'', now edited by
Professor Charles Mitchell, Professor Paul Mitchell, and Dr Stephen Watterson. A good example of the close relationship between the academy and the profession in the development of this area of law is seen in the recent publication of the
''Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment''''.''
Restitution or unjust enrichment?
As it has developed, the law of unjust enrichment has frequently been referred to as the 'law of restitution'. The difficulty with this is that it emphasises a legal ''response'' (restitution) rather than the ''event'' which gives rise to it (unjust enrichment). In doing so, it is akin to treating contract (an event which gives rise to an obligation to perform) as coterminous with compensation (the law's response to non-performance or defective performance). That approach is problematic: the law of compensation is wider than contract, encompassing compensation claims arising out of tortious conduct. This is equally true of restitution: a claimant can obtain restitution not only for an unjust enrichment, but also for a tort. It is in this sense that one can say that restitution is multi-causal: it is a legal response to a number of different events.
Continuing controversies
Controversy continues to surround many aspects of the modern law of unjust enrichment. This controversy extends to its existence as an independent body of law, some arguing that the concept of unjust enrichment lacks the explanatory power it is so frequently asserted to have.
It would be misleading to exaggerate the level of controversy, however. At least in English law, there is high authority accepting the principle of unjust enrichment as having fundamental explanatory force in this area of law.
[.] Recent decisions have continue to clarify key aspects of actions in unjust enrichment. Nevertheless, uncertainty pervades key areas of the law:
* ''Enrichment.'' The principles of enrichment and expense are more stable in cases of transfers of goods or money, but contested in cases where
labour
Labour or labor may refer to:
* Childbirth, the delivery of a baby
* Labour (human activity), or work
** Manual labour, physical work
** Wage labour, a socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer
** Organized labour and the labour ...
and benefits in kind are passed. This distinction owes its origin to the fact that, historically speaking, these were different kinds of claim.
* ''At the claimant's expense''. Cases in which a benefit is received by way of a third party can cause difficult issues for courts, given the traditional assumption that a benefit must be acquired directly from the claimant.
* Unjust' factors.'' English law has typically adopted an 'unjust factor' approach, whereby the claimant must positively identify a reason why the defendant's enrichment is 'unjust'. 'Unjust' is a generalisation of all the circumstances in which the law calls for restitution. Recognised grounds of restitution include mistake, duress, undue influence and failure of consideration. The unjust factor approach contrasts with certain
civilian
Civilians under international humanitarian law are "persons who are not members of the armed forces" and they are not "combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war". It is slightly different from a non-combatant, b ...
systems which may adopt an 'absence of basis' approach, whereby the claimant need only show that there is no good reason ('basis') for the defendant's enrichment.
* ''Defences.'' The categories of defences are also controversial: "change of position" is a general defence, although the law recognises estoppel, the ''
bona fide
In human interactions, good faith ( la, bona fides) is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction. Some Latin phrases have lost their literal meaning over centuries, but that is not the case ...
'' purchaser defence, and others as alternatives.
* ''Remedy: personal or proprietary?'' The law's remedial response to unjust enrichment is particularly controversial. The historical core of unjust enrichment lies in quasi-contract. The quasi-contractual actions were common law claims which awarded a claimant the ''money value'' of the benefit received by the defendant. As the law has extended beyond such claims, unjust enrichment scholars have debated the scope of proprietary relief: that is, whether the court should recognise that (or declare that) the claimant has a beneficial or security interest in property held by the defendant (or a third party, as in the case of
subrogation to extinguished rights).
Despite this controversy, the statement by
Justice Deane appears to remain an accurate statement of the place of unjust enrichment in the Anglo-Australian law of obligations: "
he concept of unjust enrichmentconstitutes a unifying legal concept which explains why the law recognises, in a variety of distinct categories of case, an obligation on the part of a defendant to make fair and just restitution for a benefit derived at the expense of a plaintiff and which assists in the determination, by the ordinary processes of legal reasoning, of the question whether the law should, in justice, recognise such an obligation in a new or developing category of case.
Analytic framework
English courts have recognised that there are four steps involved in establishing a claim to restitution for unjust enrichment. This analytic framework was developed by academics such as
Professor Peter Birks. The four steps were expressly endorsed by the
House of Lords
The House of Lords, also known as the House of Peers, is the Bicameralism, upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Membership is by Life peer, appointment, Hereditary peer, heredity or Lords Spiritual, official function. Like the ...
in ''
Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd'' in the form of four questions:
* (1) is a defendant ''enriched'' or ''benefited''?
* (2) is the enrichment ''at the claimant's expense''?
* (3) is the enrichment ''unjust''?
* (4) are there any ''defences''?
Subsequent case law and academic writing has given greater content to this commonly accepted framework. The application of the formula can be illustrated by ''
Kelly v Solari.'' In that case, a company paid out a life insurance policy to a widow by mistake. The company brought an action for money had and received against the widow, seeking restitution of the mistaken payment. Analysed in modern language, the widow had been enriched at the company's direct expense. The 'unjust factor' was mistake: the company had conferred the benefit whilst labouring under the incorrect
tacit assumption
A tacit assumption or implicit assumption is an assumption that underlies a logical argument, course of action, decision, or judgment that is not explicitly voiced nor necessarily understood by the decision maker or judge. These assumptions may be ...
that the payment was due.
Controversy over the status of the analytical framework
The precise status of this analytic framework and its underpinning concept of unjust enrichment is controversial.
* On the one hand, scholars have sought to provide a coherent, rational and principled structure to an area of law once riddled with legal fiction. They have also sought to avoid the perception that courts are dispensing palm tree justice by engaging in an open-ended consideration of the injustice of the circumstances. To this end, 'unjust enrichment' has been treated as a descriptive, taxonomical term with precise legal content: it does not invite some broad, discretionary examination of what is just or equitable on the facts of the case. The framework is treated as conclusive of liability, producing a clear answer to whether a defendant is obliged to give restitution of a benefit acquired at another's expense.
* On the other hand, some have suggested that the framework has too much of a 'broad-brush or legislative flavour'. The UK Supreme Court recently referred to the framework as 'broad headings for ease of exposition' and emphasised that they do not have 'statutory force'.
This debate about the precise content of 'unjust enrichment' and the utility of a strict theoretical framework is closely tied to jurisprudential debates about the role of conscience and
Equity
Equity may refer to:
Finance, accounting and ownership
* Equity (finance), ownership of assets that have liabilities attached to them
** Stock, equity based on original contributions of cash or other value to a business
** Home equity, the dif ...
in a modern system of law. Unjust enrichment has been a key battleground for the so-called 'fusion wars'.
As a matter of day-to-day practice, it is this framework which is routinely applied as the organising structure for the law. Nevertheless, practitioners frequently plead claims by reference to the old common counts. It is not yet possible to articulate the law without reference to these old categories. Whether it is desirable to do so remains a controversial question.
Enrichment
The first element of a claim is that a defendant is ''enriched''. This requirement distinguishes a claim in unjust enrichment from a claim in tort: the law of unjust enrichment is not concerned with compensation for loss, but rather with the restitution of gains.
Historically, the nature of one's claim differed depending upon the nature of the enrichment. For example, if the defendant had received money, the plaintiff would bring an action for money had and received. If the plaintiff had discharged a liability of the defendant by paying money to a third party, the plaintiff would bring an action for money paid to the defendant's use. If instead the defendant had received services or goods, the plaintiff would recover bring a quantum meruit or a quantum valebat, respectively. These were claims for the reasonable value of the services or goods. It is no longer necessary to plead one's form of action. Whilst lawyers often draft their claims by reference to this language, academic commentators tend to analyse the law without regard to such historical distinctions. In short, an 'enrichment' for the purposes of the modern law may include, amongst other things: (i) money; (ii) services; (iii)
chattels; and (iv) the discharge of a liability to a third party.
Whether a defendant has been enriched (and the proper valuation thereof) is determined objectively. Nevertheless, the law does take account of the defendant's autonomy. This is through the notion of 'subjective devaluation'. In effect, a defendant is entitled to say '
''I do not value the benefit as much as you claim I do''
' or even ''
'I did not want that benefit at all; to me it is worthless''
'. The law respects this argument because it protects individual autonomy. The law nevertheless 'looks for its limitations and curbs its excesses'. A plaintiff can overcome subjective devaluation by demonstrating:
* (i) that the defendant ''requested'' the benefit; or
* (ii) that the enrichment is an ''incontrovertible benefit''; or
* (iii) that the defendant has ''freely accepted'' the benefit.
The principles relating to enrichment can be illustrated by the following cases.
* In ''
'', Mr McDonald purchased a Mercedes (car)">Mercedes for £20,290 but was mistakenly also given a personalised number plate worth £15,000. By the time anyone realised, the plate had been registered in his name. He was therefore entitled to it under statute. The claimants (assignees of the original owners) sought restitution. Was Mr McDonald 'enriched' by receipt of a number plate personalised for another? The Court held that the benefit was an incontrovertible benefit - that is, a benefit that no reasonable person in the defendant's position would deny. The reason was that 'justice requires that a person, who ... has a benefit or the right to a benefit for which he knows that he has not bargained or paid, should reimburse the value ... if it is readily returnable without substantial difficulty or detriment and he chooses to retain it'. That is, Mr McDonald's refusal to return the number plate suggested that he did sufficiently value the benefit, particularly when it was easily returnable.
* In ''
Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC'' a company paid too much
advance corporation tax In the United Kingdom, the advance corporation tax (ACT) was part of a partial dividend imputation system introduced in 1973 under which companies were required to withhold tax on dividends before they were distributed to shareholders. The scheme ...
to the public revenue. But for this mistake of law, the payment would have been deferred to a later time. The company sought recovery of the money with
compound interest. Had the public revenue been 'enriched' by its early receipt of the money? The House of Lords held that compound interest was available. The question then become one of ''valuing'' the claim. The majority held that the enrichment was the opportunity to use the money: the public revenue had effectively received a loan. The decision illustrates that one can bring a claim in respect of the 'use value' of money.
* In ''
Exall v Partridge'', Mr Exall left his carriage on Mr Partridge's property for repair. Partridge's landlord later seized Partridge's
coachbuilding
A coachbuilder or body-maker is someone who manufactures bodies for passenger-carrying vehicles.Construction has always been a skilled trade requiring a relatively lightweight product with sufficient strength. The manufacture of necessarily ...
shop and the property inside, including Exall's carriage. In order to end the
distress, Exall paid the rent, discharging Partridge's liability to his landlord. Exall then brought an action for money paid to the defendant's use. The
Court of King's Bench
The King's Bench (), or, during the reign of a female monarch, the Queen's Bench ('), refers to several contemporary and historical courts in some Commonwealth jurisdictions.
* Court of King's Bench (England), a historic court court of common ...
held that the money could be recovered. Grose J said 'the law implies a promise by the three defendants to repay'. The law now recognises that the implication of a request by Partridge and a promise to pay Exall for the benefit (namely, the discharge of the liability) is fictitious. The case illustrates that one's discharge of a liability of another can constitute an 'enrichment' for the purposes of the law of unjust enrichment. In modern language, this was a claim for recoupment. Whether the principle underlying recoupment and contribution is 'unjust enrichment' remains a controversial question.
At the expense of another
The enrichment must have come at the 'expense' of the claimant. There are two particularly difficult issues:
* ''Must the enrichment come directly from the claimant?'' Recent case law suggests that English law is moving away from a strict requirement that the enrichment come directly from the claimant. For example, courts have been willing to turn their attention to questions of causation and the 'economic reality' of the transaction, in lieu of strict directness.
* ''Must there be correspondence between the claimant's loss and the defendant's gain?'' Courts have generally adopted the view that there need not be complete 'equivalence' between loss and gain, provided there is a causal connection. This issue is related to the question whether there should be a 'passing on' defence: that is, whether a claimant should be able to recover from the defendant despite the claimant having 'passed on' the loss to third parties. There is no such defence in England, Australia or Canada,
although there are some statutory provisions providing for such a defence in each jurisdiction.
The requirement that the enrichment be 'at the claimant's expense' distinguishes restitution for unjust enrichment from restitution for wrongs. In the former case, there must be a subtraction from the wealth of the claimant, at least in a notional sense. In the latter, there is no such requirement. For example, where a
fiduciary
A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for exampl ...
receives a benefit in breach of the 'no profit' rule, the defaulting fiduciary will hold that property on constructive trust for the principal. In such a case, the principal will have a direct (proprietary) claim against the fiduciary to recover the benefit. It does not matter that the principal (claimant) had no prior proprietary interest in the benefit, nor even that the benefit would never have otherwise been received by the principal.
In circumstances which are 'unjust'
In the eyes of the law, there is nothing objectionable about being enriched at the expense of another. But the law will intervene when such enrichment is 'unjust'. The question of injustice is not at large. English law adopts an 'unjust factor' approach to the law of restitution for unjust enrichment. This means that a claimant must plead by reference to the various factors that the law recognises as 'unjust'.
In contrast to the English approach, most civil law jurisdictions adopt an 'absence of basis' analysis. On this view, a defendant's enrichment is 'unjustified' where there is no 'basis' for the defendant's receipt. An example of a 'basis' is where a defendant receives a benefit under a valid and subsisting contract. The difference is more than mere conceptual or semantic emphasis. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of cases, the outcome will be the same whether an 'unjust factor' or an 'absence of basis' approach is adopted.
English cases featuring general discussion on the question of injustice include:
* ''
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council Kleinwort may refer to:
* Kleinwort Baronets
*Kleinwort Benson
Kleinwort Benson was a leading investment bank that offered a wide range of financial services from offices throughout the United Kingdom and Channel Islands. Two families, the Klei ...
''
999 999 or triple nine most often refers to:
* 999 (emergency telephone number), a telephone number for the emergency services in several countries
* 999 (number), an integer
* AD 999, a year
* 999 BC, a year
Books
* ''999'' (anthology) or ''999: T ...
2 AC 349
* ''
Woolwich v IRC''
993
Year 993 ( CMXCIII) was a common year starting on Sunday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Europe
* Spring – The 12-year-old King Otto III gives the Sword of Saints Cosmas and Damian ...
AC 70
* ''
Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v HMRC
''Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v IRC'' 012UKSC 19 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning liability for overpaid tax, and limitation of claims. The Supreme Court made a reference to the Europea ...
''
012 012 may refer to:
* Tyrrell 012, a Formula One racing car
* The dialing code for Pretoria
Pretoria () is South Africa's administrative capital, serving as the seat of the executive branch of government, and as the host to all foreign embassie ...
UKSC 19,
012 012 may refer to:
* Tyrrell 012, a Formula One racing car
* The dialing code for Pretoria
Pretoria () is South Africa's administrative capital, serving as the seat of the executive branch of government, and as the host to all foreign embassie ...
Bus LR 1033
62* ''
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v IRC
Deutsch or Deutsche may refer to:
*''Deutsch'' or ''(das) Deutsche'': the German language, in Germany and other places
*''Deutsche'': Germans, as a weak masculine, feminine or plural demonym
*Deutsch (word), originally referring to the Germanic ve ...
''
006UKHL 49
Defences
Establishing that a defendant has received a benefit at the expense of the claimant in circumstances which are unjust gives rise to a prima facie right to restitution. In most cases, this is typically a personal right to the money value of the benefit conferred. Liability is strict: there is no need to prove any wrongdoing on the part of the defendant.
The question then becomes whether there is a relevant bar or whether the defendant has a valid defence. Defences to restitutionary claims is a broader topic than defences to actions in unjust enrichment. Examples of defences or bars to restitutionary claims include:
* Change of position;
* Passing on;
* Estoppel;
* Bona fide purchase for value without notice;
* Limitation periods;
* Ministerial receipt;
* Receipt under a valid contractual or statutory obligation; and
* Lack of clean hands.
Not all these defences are available to all restitutionary claims. The availability of a defence may turn on: whether a restitutionary claim is legal or
equitable; whether a claim is for a personal or proprietary remedy; and whether the claim is brought under national or EU law.
Unjust factors
Outlined below are the 'unjust factors' which have been recognised (or proposed) within the English law of unjust enrichment. Some of these doctrines feature in the law of contract, where they are termed 'vitiating factors'. The applicable principles are not always the same, however.
Failure of consideration
Where one person pays money to another for a consideration which wholly fails, he or she may be entitled to restitution on the ground of
total failure of consideration. Academic writing typically refers to this ground as "failure of basis".
Meaning of consideration
"Consideration" in this context does not bear its
contractual meaning. This can be a particular source of confusion, given that the ground of restitution known as "failure of consideration" typically arises in contractual contexts.
* In its ''narrow'' and most commonly encountered sense, consideration refers to the failure of the condition on which a benefit was conferred.
* In its ''broader'' sense, consideration refers to the failure of a legal or factual state of affairs which has failed to materialise or subsist.
The total failure rule
The orthodox rule is that the failure of consideration must be ''total''. This means that the claimant must not have received any part of the bargained-for counter-performance; or, more accurately, that the defendant must not have commenced rendering performance. The total failure rule has been subject to persistent academic criticism. It is subject to several qualifications. In such cases, the claimant may still be entitled to restitution. Examples include:
* Where, properly construed, the benefit received by the defendant did not form part of the bargained-for counter-performance;
* Where the claimant has only received an "incidental" benefit;
[''Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team'' 010EWHC 2373 (QB)]
* Where the claimant has a legal right to reject the benefit and return it in specie;
* Where there has been a total failure in relation to a severable part.
Claims in respect of non-money benefits
The ground of restitution known as total failure of developed within the
action for money had and received. That action was only available in respect of money claims. Where the claimant conferred a non-money benefit upon a defendant, the correct form of action was a ''quantum meruit'' (services) or ''quantum valebat'' (goods). It is tolerably clear that failure of consideration can now apply to non-money claims.
Taxonomy
Failure of consideration typically arises where a contract is "ineffective". This is not a term of art, but rather a useful tool for exposition. A contract may be ineffective for a number of reasons. Failure of consideration may arise:
* Where a contract is discharged for
breach
Breach, Breached, or The Breach may refer to:
Places
* Breach, Kent, United Kingdom
* Breach, West Sussex, United Kingdom
* ''The Breach'', Great South Bay in the State of New York
People
* Breach (DJ), an Electronic/House music act
* Miroslava ...
or repudiation by the claimant or defendant;
* Where a contract is unenforceable for want of compliance with the relevant formalities;
* Where a contract is discharged by
frustration
In psychology, frustration is a common emotional response to opposition, related to anger, annoyance and disappointment. Frustration arises from the perceived resistance to the fulfillment of an individual's will or goal and is likely to inc ...
;
* Where a contract is rescinded due to a vitiating factor (e.g., mistake; undue influence);
* Where a contract is void ''ab initio.''
Mistake
A benefit conferred upon another whilst labouring under a qualifying mistake gives rise to a ''prima facie'' claim for restitution of the benefit. Where one person pays money to another whilst labouring under a causative mistake of fact or law, he or she may be entitled to restitution on the ground of mistake. Restitution for a mistaken payment is widely regarded as the paradigm case of restitution for unjust enrichment.
Background
Historically, the law took a highly restrictive approach to recovery for mistake. First, the law only recognised mistakes which related to a matter of fact, rather than law. This rule was judicially abandoned in 1999. Secondly, the mistake had to be a "supposed liability" mistake. This meant that the claimant must have laboured under the belief that he or she was under a legal obligation to pay. This rule has also been abandoned, though the implications of this remain unsettled.
Claims in respect of non-money benefits
The prevailing academic view (for which there is some support in the cases) is that mistake can be a ground of restitution for services.
Misrepresentation
*''
Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co
''Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co'' (1878) 3 App Cas 1218 is a landmark English contract law, restitution and UK company law case. It concerned rescission for misrepresentation and how the impossibility of counter restitution may be a bar t ...
'' (1878) 3 App Cas 1218, on misrepresentation
Ignorance
*Common law strict liability subject to defences
*''
Holiday v Sigil''
*''
Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck
''Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck'' 9211 KB 321 is an English trusts law case concerning the common law remedies for receipt of trust property.
Facts
Mr Hambrouck forged cheques so £6000 came out of the account of Mr Pelabon at th ...
''
*''
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson''
*Equity,
knowing receipt
Knowing receipt is an English trusts law doctrine for imposing liability on a person who has received property that belongs to a trust, or which was held by a fiduciary, having known that the property was given to them in breach of trust. To be li ...
and dealing
*''
Carl-Zess Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co (No 2)'', dishonesty required
*''
Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts''
*''
Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)
''Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)'' 9801 All ER 393 is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and dishonest assistance.
Facts
Belmont Finance Corp was wholly owned by City Industrial Finance, Mr James ...
'', negligence also held to be sufficient
*''
BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele
is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and knowing receipt of trust property.
Facts
The liquidators of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, BCCI sued Chief Labode Onadimaki Akindele, a Nigerian businessman, for $6,679, ...
'', unconscionability as the test
*''
Re Diplock
''Re Diplock'' or ''Ministry of Health v Simpson'' 951AC 251 is an English trusts law and unjust enrichment case, concerning tracing and an action for money had and received.
Facts
Various charities, including the Royal Sailors Orphans Girls†...
'', strict liability subject to defences as an exception
Duress
Undue influence and exploitation
*Relational undue influence
*''
Allcard v Skinner
''Allcard v Skinner'' (1887) 36 Ch D 145 is a judicial decision under English law dealing with undue influence
Undue influence (UI) is a psychological process by which a person's free will and judgement is supplanted by that of another. It ...
'' (1887) 36 Ch D 145
*The role of unconscionable conduct
*Exploitation of the mental inadequacy of the claimant
*Exploitation of the economic weakness of the claimant
*Exploitation of the difficult circumstances of the claimant
*Illegality to protect vulnerable persons from exploitation
Legal compulsion
Legal compulsion is a proposed ground of restitution. It is said to explain the law relating to recoupment and contribution.
* ''Recoupment.'' Where one person discharges the debt of another, he or she may be able to sue the debtor and thereby recoup the loss. Historically, this was a
quasi-contract
A quasi-contract (or implied-in-law contract or constructive contract) is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi Contra ...
ual action known as an action for money paid, laid out and expended to the defendant's use.
* ''Contribution''. Where two persons bear a co-ordinate liability, they must share the burden pro rata. For example, where A and B are both under a common liability to pay C, and A pays this debt, A can claim contribution from C. Historically, this would be a suit in
Chancery (or in the
Exchequer
In the civil service of the United Kingdom, His Majesty’s Exchequer, or just the Exchequer, is the accounting process of central government and the government's ''current account'' (i.e., money held from taxation and other government reven ...
) and is accordingly an
equitable claim. Some rights of contribution are now governed by statute.
Whether such claims are capable of being rationalised on the ground of unjust enrichment remains a controversial question.
Necessity
Illegality
*''
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence ...
''
Incapacity
*
Companies Act 2006
The Companies Act 2006 (c 46) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which forms the primary source of UK company law.
The Act was brought into force in stages, with the final provision being commenced on 1 October 2009. It largely ...
ss 39-40
*''
Gibb v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
Gibb is a surname of Scottish origin dating to the sixteenth century. It is a diminutive of " Gilbert".
Notable people with the given name
* Andrew Gibb Maitland (1864–1951), English-born Australian geologist
* Gibb McLaughlin (1884–1960), ...
''
EWCA_Civ_678[26.html" ;"title="010
EWCA Civ 678[26">010
EWCA Civ 678[26[27] held an NHS trust had not acted ''ultra vires'' so that a £250k payment to a former chief executive could not be recovered as being irrationally overpaid.
*''Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC''
992
Year 992 ( CMXCII) was a leap year starting on Friday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Worldwide
* Winter – A superflare from the sun causes an Aurora Borealis, with visibility as fa ...
2 AC 1. Banks paid councils a lump sum (for Islington, £2.5m). The councils then paid the banks back at the prevailing interest rate. Banks paid councils back a fixed interest rate (this is the swap part). The point was that councils were gambling on what interest rates would do. So if interest rates fell, the councils would win. As it happened, interest rates were going up and the banks were winning. Islington was due to pay £1,354,474, but after Hazell, it refused, and waited to see what the courts said. At first instance Hobhouse J said that because the contract for the swap scheme was void, the council had been unjustly enriched with the lump sum (£2.5m) and it should have to pay
compound interest (lots) rather than simple interest (lots, but not so much). But luckily for local government, three law Lords held that Islington only needed to repay with simple interest. There was no jurisdiction for compound interest. They said this was because there was no ‘resulting trust’.
*''
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC
is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House o ...
''
996
Year 996 ( CMXCVI) was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Japan
* February - Chotoku Incident: Fujiwara no Korechika and Takaie shoot an arrow at Retired Em ...
AC 669, the council had no authority to enter into a complex swap transaction with the German bank. So the House of Lords held that the council should repay the money they had been lent and a hitherto unknown ‘unjust’ factor was added to the list. Birks argued that the better explanation in all cases is an ‘absence of basis’ for the transfer of property. Searching through or adding to a list of open ended unjust factors simply concludes on grounds of what one wishes to prove, grounds that ‘would have to be constantly massaged to ensure that they dictated an answer as stable as is reached by the shorter ‘non basis’ route.’ (Birks (2005) 113)
*''
Banque Financiere de la Cite v. Parc (Battersea) Ltd''
999 999 or triple nine most often refers to:
* 999 (emergency telephone number), a telephone number for the emergency services in several countries
* 999 (number), an integer
* AD 999, a year
* 999 BC, a year
Books
* ''999'' (anthology) or ''999: T ...
1 AC 221
*''
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell plc v IRC
Deutsch or Deutsche may refer to:
*''Deutsch'' or ''(das) Deutsche'': the German language, in Germany and other places
*''Deutsche'': Germans, as a weak masculine, feminine or plural demonym
*Deutsch (word), originally referring to the Germanic ve ...
''
006UKHL 49 at
6Money was paid as tax under a statutory regime, which the ECJ later held to have infringed the EC Treaty. The House of Lords held that a claim could be made on grounds of a ‘mistake as to the law’.
Professor Charles Mitchell prefers the reasoning of Park J at first instance, which recognised that there is not really a ‘mistake’ in terms of an ‘impairment of a claimant's actual thought processes’. Lord Hoffmann recognised it only implicitly at
2
Remedy: personal and proprietary restitution
If a claimant can establish that the defendant has been enriched at the claimant's expense in circumstances which are unjust, the claimant has a prima facie right to restitution. The question then becomes whether the claimant is entitled to a personal or a proprietary remedy.
Historically, the ''indebitatus'' counts only afforded a personal remedy. Hence where the claimant's action would have been brought as an action for money had and received, for money paid, or as a quantum meruit or quantum valebat, the claimant is only entitled to a money award. In short, an action for restitution of unjust enrichment only generates a ''personal'' liability: the claimant has no proprietary interest in any specific asset of the defendant.
Academic writers have sought to expand the explanatory power of 'unjust enrichment'. They have suggested that the doctrine of
subrogation forms part of the law of unjust enrichment. If correct, this would be an instance of unjust enrichment generating a proprietary remedy. English courts have since accepted that the concept of unjust enrichment has a role to play in subrogation.
The English approach has been stridently rejected by the High Court of Australia.
Academic writers such as
Professor Birks
Peter Brian Herrenden Birks (3 October 1941 – 6 July 2004) was the Regius Professor of Civil Law at the University of Oxford from 1989 until his death. He also became a Fellow of the British Academy in 1989, and an honorary Queen's counsel i ...
and
Professor Burrows
Andrew Stephen Burrows, Lord Burrows, (born 17 April 1957[BURROWS, Prof. Andrew ...](_blank)
have argued that claims to the traceable substitute of one's property are claims in unjust enrichment. This view has been rejected by the House of Lords.
They instead held that such claims were a matter of vindicating property rights, a view long associated with
Professor Virgo. Even if not (for the foreseeable future) a part of the law of unjust enrichment, a claim to the traceable proceeds of one's property remains part of the law of restitution. The remainder of this section concerns proprietary restitution. Proprietary restitution is where a claimant who is entitled to restitution is awarded a proprietary remedy.
;Tracing at common law
*''
Taylor v Plumer
''Taylor v Plumer'' tracing_of_assets_which_were_wrongfully_taken_in_breach_of_trust.
_Facts
Thomas_Plumer.html" ;"title="tracing_(law).html" ;"title="English_trusts_law.html" ;"title="815EWHC KB J84is an English trusts law">815EWHC KB J84is an ...
''
*''
Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck
''Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck'' 9211 KB 321 is an English trusts law case concerning the common law remedies for receipt of trust property.
Facts
Mr Hambrouck forged cheques so £6000 came out of the account of Mr Pelabon at th ...
''
*''
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson''
*''
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence ...
''
*''
Trustee of the Property of FC Jones and Sons v Jones
is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.
Facts
Mr Jones transferred £11,700 in cheques from his potato growing firm’s bank account to Mrs Jones. ...
''
;Tracing in equity
*''
Sinclair v Brougham
''Sinclair v Brougham'' 914AC 398 is an English trusts law case, concerning the right of depositors to recover sums which were deposited (or loaned) to a building society under contracts of deposit which were beyond the powers of (''ultra vires' ...
''
*''
Re Diplock
''Re Diplock'' or ''Ministry of Health v Simpson'' 951AC 251 is an English trusts law and unjust enrichment case, concerning tracing and an action for money had and received.
Facts
Various charities, including the Royal Sailors Orphans Girls†...
''
948
Year 948 ( CMXLVIII) was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Byzantine Empire
* Arab–Byzantine War: Hamdanid forces under Sayf al-Dawla raid into Asia Minor ...
Ch 465, 533, 534, and 539
*''
Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Vaughan
''Vaughan v Barlow Clowes International Ltd'' 991EWCA Civ 11is an English trusts law case, concerning Tracing (law)">tracing.
Facts
The receivers of Barlow Clowes, a failed investment management firm, applied to determine in what order they shou ...
''
992
Year 992 ( CMXCII) was a leap year starting on Friday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Worldwide
* Winter – A superflare from the sun causes an Aurora Borealis, with visibility as fa ...
4 All ER 22
*''
Re Hallett's Estate
''Re Hallett’s Estate'' (1880) 13 Ch D 696 is an English trusts law case, concerning asset tracing.
Facts
Mr Hallett, a solicitor, held bonds for Mrs Cotterill worth £2145 until he wrongfully sold them and put the proceeds in his current ...
'' (1880) 13 Ch D 696, 727
*''
Re Oatway
''Re Oatway'' 9032 Ch 356 is an English trusts law case, concerning tracing.
Facts
Mr Oatway was a trustee of Charles Skipper’s will. He took £3000 of trust money and mixed it with £4000 of his own. He used £2137 from the fund to buy share ...
''
903
__NOTOC__
Year 903 ( CMIII) was a common year starting on Saturday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Europe
* King Berengar I of Italy proceeds to issue concessions and privileges to the Lo ...
2 Ch 356, 360
*''
Re Tilley's Will Trusts''
*''
Foskett v McKeown
is a leading case on the English law of trusts, concerning tracing and the availability of proprietary relief following a breach of trust.
Facts
In breach of trust, Mr Murphy took £20,440 from a company he controlled. Over 200 investors ( ...
''
0011 AC 102, 127-8
*''
James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder
''James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder'' 9151 Ch 62 is an English trusts law case, concerning asset tracing.
Facts
Mr Winder was the trustee in bankruptcy for Mr William Wigham, who had bought James Roscoe Ltd in March 1913. Mr Wigham had agre ...
''
9151 Ch 62
*''
Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd''
*''
Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan
''Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan'' 994EWCA Civ 33is an English trusts law case about whether a beneficiary whose fiduciary breaches trust, may trace assets through an overdrawn account to its destination.
Facts
Mr Homan, a PriceW ...
''
;Proprietary restitution
*''
Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd
''Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd'' 981Ch 105 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. It held that a trust arose to protect a payment made under a mistake, with the benefit of a proprietary re ...
''
*''
Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter
''Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter'' 993AC 713 was a judicial decision of House of Lords relating to the right of subrogation (and in particular, the quantification of that right) where an insurer pays with respect to an insured risk and the ...
''
*''
Boscawen v Bajwa''
*''
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC
is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House o ...
''
Following
*''
Jones v De Marchant'' (1916) 28 DLR 561
Tracing
*''
Shalson v Russo
Peter Shalson (born February 1957) is a British businessman.
Early life
Peter Shalson was born in February 1957. He was educated at Hendon County School, and left at 16.
Career
Shalson made his first fortune in coat hangers and packaging mater ...
''
003 003, O03, 0O3, OO3 may refer to:
*003, fictional British 00 Agent
*003, former emergency telephone number for the Norwegian ambulance service (until 1986)
*1990 OO3, the asteroid 6131 Towen
* OO3 gauge model railway
*''O03 (O2)'' and other related ...
EWHC 1637 (Ch),
005Ch 281
44*''
Turner v Jacob
Turner may refer to:
People and fictional characters
*Turner (surname), a common surname, including a list of people and fictional characters with the name
* Turner (given name), a list of people with the given name
*One who uses a lathe for turni ...
''
006EWHC 1317 (Ch),
008 008, OO8, O08, or 0O8 may refer to:
* The Streetwear Brand @008us , inspired by Ian Fleming & Virgil Abloh
*"030", the fictional 030 Agent of MI6
* '' 038: Operation Exterminate'', a 1965 Italian action film
* '' Explosivo 030'' a 1940 Argentine c ...
WTLR 307
00 02
Mixing two claimants' money or money mixed with an innocent claimant
*''
Clayton's case
''Devaynes v Noble'' (1816) 35 ER 781, best known for the claim contained in ''Clayton's case'', created a rule, or more precisely common law presumption, in relation to the distribution of money from a bank account. The rule is based upon the d ...
'' (1816) 1 Mer 529
*''
Russell-Cooke Trust Co v Prentis''
002 002, 0O2, O02, OO2, or 002 may refer to:
Fiction
*002, fictional British 00 Agent
*''002 Operazione Luna'',
*1965 Italian film
*Zero Two, a ''Darling in the Franxx'' character
Airports
*0O2, Baker Airport
*O02, Nervino Airport
Astronomy
*1996 ...
EWHC 2227 (Ch),
003 003, O03, 0O3, OO3 may refer to:
*003, fictional British 00 Agent
*003, former emergency telephone number for the Norwegian ambulance service (until 1986)
*1990 OO3, the asteroid 6131 Towen
* OO3 gauge model railway
*''O03 (O2)'' and other related ...
2 All ER 478
5*''
Commerzbank AG v IMB Morgan plc''
004EWHC 2771 (Ch),
0051 Lloyd's Rep 198
Backwards tracing
*''
Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan
''Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan'' 994EWCA Civ 33is an English trusts law case about whether a beneficiary whose fiduciary breaches trust, may trace assets through an overdrawn account to its destination.
Facts
Mr Homan, a PriceW ...
''
994
Year 994 ( CMXCIV) was a common year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Byzantine Empire
* September 15 – Battle of the Orontes: Fatimid forces, under Turkish gener ...
3 WLR 1270, 1274 and 1279
*''
Law Society v Haider''
003 003, O03, 0O3, OO3 may refer to:
*003, fictional British 00 Agent
*003, former emergency telephone number for the Norwegian ambulance service (until 1986)
*1990 OO3, the asteroid 6131 Towen
* OO3 gauge model railway
*''O03 (O2)'' and other related ...
EWHC 2486 (Ch)
0 1*M Conaglen ‘Difficulties with Tracing Backwards’ (2011) 127 LQR 432
Swollen assets theory
*''
Space Investments Ltd v CIBC (Bahamas) Ltd
Space is the boundless Three-dimensional space, three-dimensional extent in which Physical body, objects and events have relative position (geometry), position and direction (geometry), direction. In classical physics, physical space is often ...
''
986
Year 986 ( CMLXXXVI) was a common year starting on Friday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Byzantine Empire
* August 17 – Battle of the Gates of Trajan: Emperor Basil II leads a Byz ...
1 WLR 1072
*''
Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings plc
Serious may refer to:
* Seriousness, an attitude of gravity, solemnity, persistence, or earnestness
* Serious (TV series), ''Serious'' (TV series), a BBC children's television show
Albums
* Serious (Luther Allison album), ''Serious'' (Luther Alli ...
''
008 008, OO8, O08, or 0O8 may refer to:
* The Streetwear Brand @008us , inspired by Ian Fleming & Virgil Abloh
*"030", the fictional 030 Agent of MI6
* '' 038: Operation Exterminate'', a 1965 Italian action film
* '' Explosivo 030'' a 1940 Argentine c ...
EWCA Crim 1443,
009 009 may refer to:
* OO9, gauge model railways
* O09, FAA identifier for Round Valley Airport
* 0O9, FAA identifier for Ward Field, see List of airports in California
* British secret agent 009, see 00 Agent
* BA 009, see British Airways Flight 9
* ...
QB 376
6 8
Defences
Change of position
*''
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence ...
''
*''
Philip Collins Ltd v Davis''
000
Triple zero, Triple Zero, Zero Zero Zero, Triple 0, Triple-0, 000, or 0-0-0 may refer to:
* 000 (emergency telephone number), the Australian emergency telephone number
* "Triple Zero", a song by AFI (band), AFI from ''Shut Your Mouth and Open Your ...
3 All ER 808
*''
Scottish Equitable plc v Derby''
*''
Commerzbank AG v Gareth Price-Jones
Commerzbank AG () is a major German bank operating as a universal bank, headquartered in Frankfurt am Main. In the 2019 financial year, the bank was the second largest in Germany by the total value of its balance sheet. Founded in 1870 in Hambur ...
''
*''
Dextra Bank and Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica''
*''
Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Milestone Trading Ltd
Niru, (born Nirmalan Nadarajah on 13 January 1980) is a Tamil people, Tamil music director and composer. He is renowned in Kollywood for both the sensuality of his melodies and the charisma of his work. From his rendition ''Netriunthom Engal Vi ...
''
*''
Barros Mattos Junior v Macdaniels Ltd Barros is a Portuguese language, Portuguese and Galician language, Galician surname. It may refer to:
People
*Alejandra Barros, Mexican actress
*Alex Barros, Brazilian motorcycle road racer
*Ana Beatriz Barros, Brazilian model
*Ana P. Barros, Ameri ...
''
*''
RBC Dominion Securities Inc v Dawson
RBC may refer to:
Media and arts
* ''RBK Daily'', a general business newspaper published in Moscow, Russia.
* RBK Group, a large Russian media group
* RBC Ministries, now Our Daily Bread Ministries, a Christian media outlet in Grand Rapdis, Mic ...
''
Estoppel
*''
Avon CC v Howlett''
*''
Scottish Equitable plc v Derby''
*''
National Westminster Bank plc v Somer International (UK) Ltd
National may refer to:
Common uses
* Nation or country
** Nationality – a ''national'' is a person who is subject to a nation, regardless of whether the person has full rights as a citizen
Places in the United States
* National, Maryland, ce ...
''
Bona Fide Purchaser
It means that good value is given for receipt of assets without notice of breach of trust. It is a complete defence to any knowing receipt claim.
*''
Miller v Race
A miller is a person who operates a mill, a machine to grind a grain (for example corn or wheat) to make flour. Milling is among the oldest of human occupations. "Miller", "Milne" and other variants are common surnames, as are their equivalent ...
''
*''
Dextra Bank & Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica''
Agency
Another available defence is ministerial receipt, i.e. the recipient defendant receives the assets as agent for another.
*''
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation''
*''
Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck Portman is a surname of Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Saxon English language, English origin. Notable bearers were the Viscount Portman, Viscounts Portman. It may refer to:
Office
* Portman (burgess), a freeman or burgess of a port
Boats
* Portman 36, an A ...
''
Counter restitution impossible
In circumstances where one party is claiming recovery of the benefits the other party has unjustly obtained ("restitution"), ''counter restitution'' refers to the obligation of the party claiming recovery to repay any benefits they themselves have obtained. Where this party has obtained benefits which cannot be repaid, and therefore counter restitution is impossible, then their claim for recovery of benefits will be barred.
[Farnhill, R.]
Restitution Claims: Getting your own back
Allen & Overy
Allen & Overy LLP (informally A&O) is an international law firm. The firm has 580 partners and over 5,600 people worldwide. In 2022 A&O reported an increase in revenue to GBP1.96 billion and is the second largest law firm headquartered in t ...
Litigation Review, published 15 March 2011, accessed 4 September 2020
*''
Clarke v Dickson''
*''
Armstrong v Jackson''
*''
Spence v Crawford''
*''
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers Ltd
Smith may refer to:
People
* Metalsmith, or simply smith, a craftsman fashioning tools or works of art out of various metals
* Smith (given name)
* Smith (surname), a family name originating in England, Scotland and Ireland
** List of people w ...
''
*''
Mahoney v Purnell''
Passing on
*''
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham CC
''Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham CC'' 996
Year 996 ( CMXCVI) was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place
Japan
* February - Chotoku Incident: Fujiwara no Korechika and Takaie shoot an arrow at Retired Em ...
4 All ER 733 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant. It rejected a defence of "passing on" the gain ag ...
''
*''
Commissioner of State Revenue v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd
A commissioner (commonly abbreviated as Comm'r) is, in principle, a member of a Regulatory agency, commission or an individual who has been given a Wiktionary: commission, commission (official charge or authority to do something).
In practice, th ...
''
Illegality
*''
Oom v Bruce''
*''
Smith v Bromley''
*''
Smith v Cuff''
*''
Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd Parkinson may refer to:
*Parkinson (surname)
*Parkinson (TV series), ''Parkinson'' (TV series), British chat show, presented by Sir Michael Parkinson
*Parkinson, Queensland, suburb of Brisbane, Australia
*The Parkinsons (fl. early 20th century), Am ...
''
*''
Re Cavalier Insurance Co Ltd''
*''
Mohamed v Alaga & Co''
*''
Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd''
*''
Tinsley v Milligan
is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and illegality.
The decision was criticised as "creating capricious results". It has now been overruled by .
Facts
Miss Tinsley sought possession of ...
''
*''
Tribe v Tribe
is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and illegality.
Facts
A father transferred company shares to his son (presumption of advancement) to preserve them for the family’s benefit because he ...
''
*''
Nelson v Nelson''
Incapacity
*''
Cowern v Nield''
*''
Stocks v Wilson''
*''
R Leslie Ltd v Sheill''
*
Minors' Contracts Act 1987 s 3
See also
*
The Law of Obligations
**
The English Law of Restitution
**
The English Law of Trusts
**
The English Law of Tort
**
The English Law of Contract
*Prominent academics in the English law of restitution:
**
Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley
Robert Lionel Archibald Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley, (12 November 1926 – 14 August 2016) was an English barrister and judge who was Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, the equivalent of today's President of the Supreme Court. Best known fo ...
**
Professor Gareth Jones
**
Professor Peter Birks
**
Professor Andrew Burrows
**
Professor Graham Virgo
**
Professor Charles Mitchell
Notes
References
*P Birks, ''Unjust Enrichment'' (2nd Ed, Clarendon, Oxford, 2005)
*A Burrows, J Edelman and E McKendrick, ''Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution'' (2nd Ed, OUP, Oxford, 2007)
{{DEFAULTSORT:English Unjust Enrichment Law
English law
Unjust enrichment
Common law rules