Philip Collins Ltd v Davis [2000] 3 All ER 808 is an English unjust enrichment case, an example of a restitution claim and the change of position defence.[who?]

Davis and Satterfield argued back they were entitled to royalties without the pro rata reduction, and raised both estoppel and change of position defences.

I wish to stress however that the mere fact that the defendant has spent the money, in whole or in part, does not of itself render it inequitable that he should be called upon to repay, because the expenditure might in any event have been incurred by him in the ordinary course of things.

78 Earlier in his speech in Lipkin Gorman (at p. 578) Lord Goff said this: “The claim for money had and received is not, as I have previously mentioned, founded upon any wrong committed by the club against the solicitors.

But it does not, in my opinion, follow that the court has carte blanche to reject the solicitors' claim simply because it thinks it unfair or unjust in the circumstances to grant recovery.

972, held that, as a general principle, the change of position must have occurred after receipt of the overpayment, although in Goff & Jones (above) the correctness of this decision is doubted (see ibid.

In the first place, the recovery which is sought relates only to the excess payments of royalty, since one third of the sums actually paid was payable in any event.

In the second place, the fact that the defendants are currently in financial difficulties is not in itself indicative of a relevant change of position on their part.

83 In their witness statements, which formed the basis of their oral evidence in chief, the defendants addressed the issue of change of position in unequivocal terms.

Most of this remains unpaid … The unannounced withholding of funds has had a domino effect upon my life since most of my projects were predicated on the existence of these royalties.” Mr Satterfield said this in his witness statement: “I was heavily reliant upon these royalty payments.

The effect is a vicious circle…” 84 Had those factual accounts been true and accurate, they would undoubtedly have provided a strong foundation for a complete defence on grounds of change of position; particularly so in the case of Mr Davis.

In the event, however, the passages in the defendants' witness statements dealing with the question of change of position turned out to be seriously exaggerated.

He acknowledged that at no stage did he have any savings to speak of, and that his present financial difficulties were due to some bad business decisions on his part.

He was unable to point to any particular decision having been taken, or act done, whether by him or on his behalf, as being directly referable to the fact that he was in receipt of royalties calculated on a non-prorated basis.

Consequently, he realised that his royalty income from the Live Album would not be maintained at the level of the payments received during the first year or so after its release.

86 So far as Mr Satterfield is concerned, I intend no criticism whatever of him when I describe him as having a somewhat relaxed and philosophical attitude to life in general, and in particular to financial and administrative matters.

He accepted that the assertion in his witness statement that he cannot work because he cannot afford the up-front hotel and travel costs is an overstatement.

At the conclusion of his cross-examination Mr Satterfield described his current financial position as follows (according to my note): “I have no money left from my earnings.

On the other hand, in the particular circumstances of the instant case the absence of such a finding is not, in my judgment, fatal to the defence of the change of position.

90 In my judgment, the defence of change of position which I have found to be established cannot extend to the entirety of the claim, if only because had the correct amount of royalties been paid the defendants' level of outgoings might not have reduced proportionately.

I accept Mr Howe's submission that, on the particular facts of the instant case, the court should adopt a broad approach to this question; if only because, for reasons already given, the defendants' evidence as to their financial affairs does not admit of detailed analysis.

In my judgment that represents, on the evidence, a conservative assessment of extent to which the overpayments led to a change of position on the part of the defendants.

93 It is, however, to be observed that limiting the claim to half the overpayments will almost certainly have no practical effect, since on the evidence it is highly improbable, to put it no higher, that the defendants' future royalty entitlement from sales of the Live Album will amount to anything approaching that sum.