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 of change of position.

[1] Although the case is most famous for the transformative judgment handed down by the House of Lords in relation to restitution and unjust enrichment, the decision of the Court of Appeal is also an important banking law decision in its own right, setting out key principles relating to the duty of care owed by bankers to their customers.

Between March and November 1980, the club won £154,695 of the stolen money (the rest paid back to Mr Cass in ‘winnings’).

At first instance the claims were equally focussed upon the club and the firm's bankers (against whom the claimant solicitors pleaded both negligence and liability as constructive trustees).

Unfortunately, the discussion of the issue in the Court of Appeal was complicated because of the way the plaintiff law firm's claim was pleaded and the offering of no evidence by the bank.

[6] The Court of Appeal accepted counsel's submission that the bank could not be liable as constructive trustee if it was not shown to be at least negligent.

Presented with a cheque drawn in accordance with the terms of that contract, the bank must honour it save in what I would expect to be exceptional circumstances.

"[9] The House of Lords held that £150,960 should be repaid as money had and received, and the club was also liable for damages of £3,735 to the solicitors for conversion of a banker’s draft that had been used once for gambling, rather than cash.

Because the winnings have been paid out to Cass, the club has effectively changed its position and its liability is limited to the remaining sum of £150,960.