''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 from ''Shut Your Mouth and Open Your Eyes'' * Th ...

3 All ER 808 is an

English unjust enrichment The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit ...

case, an example of a restitution claim and the

change of position Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment which operates to reduce a defendant's liability to the extent to which his or her circumstances have changed as a consequence of an enrichment. History The historical core of the ...

defence.

Facts

Phil Collins released '' Serious Hits… Live!'' with 15 tracks in 1990. Rahmlee Davis and

Louis Satterfield Louis Edward Satterfield (April 3, 1937 – September 27, 2004) was an American bassist and trombonist. Satterfield was a member of both The Pharaohs and the Phenix Horns. He also collaborated with prominent artists such as Earth, Wind & Fire, ...

contributed performances on five tracks and received album royalties via Collins' publishing company ''Philip Collins Ltd''. In 1997, Collins said they had been mistakenly overpaid by a factor of three. They had been paid as if they had performed on all fifteen tracks, but they had only performed on five. To reverse this alleged

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 re ...

, Collins proposed to set off the overpaid royalties on future royalties. Davis and Satterfield argued back they were entitled to royalties without the pro rata reduction, and raised both estoppel and

defences.

Judgment

Jonathan Parker J held Collins had overpaid Davis and Satterfield and he was entitled to set future royalties off against half of the sums overpaid. He said the overpayment was a mistake of fact, because Collins thought they had played in all 15 tracks. Collins was not estopped from maintaining there was overpayment of royalties because there was never any assumption between the parties that Davis and Satterfield would get royalties for all 15 tracks and there was no acquiescence in the assumption. Overpayment was not acquiescence. There was no evidence Davis and Satterfield ever thought they were entitled. The overpayments did not amount to representations that they were (so no estoppel by representation). But the fact of overpayment did result in a general change of position on Davis and Satterfield's part. It increased their level of outgoings. However, the defence of change of position was not an “all or nothing” doctrine and, in this case, it would be fair to allow the defence to cover one half of the overpayments (''

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 ...

'' 9912 AC 548 applied). Finally, if Collins had made a claim to recover the overpayments his claim would have been statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980, s.5 because it was six years. But here it was not a return of overpayments, only an equitable set off against future royalties. The following is an excerpt about the change of position defence at work.

Notes

{{reflist English unjust enrichment case law High Court of Justice cases 2000 in United Kingdom case law Phil Collins

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes