English unjust enrichment law

[1] 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.

The notion of an obligation to make restitution of benefits received at another's expense can be traced back to Roman 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 first major practitioner text in England appeared in 1966, written by Robert Goff and Gareth Jones.

The difficulty with this is that it emphasises a legal response (restitution) rather than the event which gives rise to it (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.

[4][2] Recent decisions have continue to clarify key aspects of actions in unjust enrichment.

[12] Nevertheless, uncertainty pervades key areas of the law: 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:[15] "[The concept of unjust enrichment] constitutes 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.

[16] English courts have recognised that there are four steps involved in establishing a claim to restitution for unjust enrichment.

The four steps were expressly endorsed by the House of Lords in Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd[17] in the form of four questions: Subsequent case law and academic writing has given greater content to this commonly accepted framework.

The company brought an action for money had and received against the widow, seeking restitution of the mistaken payment.

The 'unjust factor' was mistake: the company had conferred the benefit whilst labouring under the incorrect tacit assumption that the payment was due.

The precise status of this analytic framework and its underpinning concept of unjust enrichment is controversial.

As a matter of day-to-day practice, it is this framework which is routinely applied as the organising structure for the law.

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.

[23] A plaintiff can overcome subjective devaluation by demonstrating:[24] The principles relating to enrichment can be illustrated by the following cases.

In contrast to the English approach, most civil law jurisdictions adopt an 'absence of basis' analysis.

English cases featuring general discussion on the question of injustice include: 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.

This can be a particular source of confusion, given that the ground of restitution known as "failure of consideration" typically arises in contractual contexts.

This means that the claimant must not have received any part of the bargained-for counter-performance;[38] or, more accurately, that the defendant must not have commenced rendering performance.

Examples include: The ground of restitution known as total failure of developed within the action for money had and received.

This rule has also been abandoned,[52] though the implications of this remain unsettled.The prevailing academic view[53] (for which there is some support in the cases)[54] is that mistake can be a ground of restitution for services.

Whether such claims are capable of being rationalised on the ground of unjust enrichment remains a controversial question.

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.

English courts have since accepted that the concept of unjust enrichment has a role to play in subrogation.

[2][62] They instead held that such claims were a matter of vindicating property rights, a view long associated with Professor Virgo.

Another available defence is ministerial receipt, i.e. the recipient defendant receives the assets as agent for another.