Category Archives: Unjust enrichment

‘The Supreme Court tames but does not end disgorgement in SEC cases: Liu v SEC

“By an 8-1 vote (with Justice Thomas dissenting), the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor upheld – while limiting – the SEC’s power to seek disgorgement in fraud cases. Sotomayor sets the stage as follows: ‘In civil actions, the SEC can seek civil penalties and “equitable relief” …’” (more) [, 23 June]

Rory Gregson, ‘Is subrogation a remedy for unjust enrichment?’

INTRODUCTION … So, who is right? Is subrogation a remedy for unjust enrichment or not? This article argues that subrogation is not a remedy for unjust enrichment in the sense that is usually assumed, since it is not governed by the same rules as other remedies for unjust enrichment. In light of this, judges and […]

Matthew Hoyle, ‘Failures for Consideration: Re‐Analysing Jurisdiction in Unjust Enrichment Claims’

ABSTRACT There has been little attempt to provide a full and coherent analysis of the rules governing service of a claim form out of the jurisdiction in claims concerning unjust enrichment. This lacuna has grown more noticeable since the rules were reformed in 2015, with the continuation of an excessively wide approach that had overrun […]

Matthew Harrington, ‘Leapfrogging, Risk and Unjust Enrichment in Canada after Moore v Sweet

ABSTRACT This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to unjust enrichment in Moore v Sweet, and considers its implications for the future of restitution in Canada. It begins by providing a brief outline of the facts of the case. Thereafter, it explores the Court’s approach to the problem of deprivation and enrichment in […]

Kit Barker, ‘Unjust Enrichment in Australia: Whats Is(n’t) it? Implications for Legal Reasoning and Practice’

ABSTRACT This paper provides an up-to date account of the nature and status of the idea of unjust enrichment in Australia, noting recent changes in the composition and attitudes of the High Court and the widespread confusion that exists amongst legal practitioners about the the way in which such claims should be pleaded in practice. […]

John McCamus, ‘Restitutionary Remedies in Three-Party Cases: A Comparative Perspective’

INTRODUCTION … This paper will examine the traditional English position concerning such claims and contrast that doctrine with more recent developments in American and Canadian restitutionary doctrine. The principal point of comparison is that American and Canadian doctrine allows restitutionary relief in a much broader range of three-party cases. With particular reference to Canadian doctrine, […]

Euan West, ‘The Interaction of Rights of Relief and Unjustified Enrichment in Scots Law’

ABSTRACT In Scots law, a cautioner (ie a guarantor) who pays the guaranteed debt enjoys so-called ‘rights of relief’ against the other parties liable for that debt: namely, a right to full compensation from the principal debtor (‘total relief’) and a right to partial compensation from co-cautioners (‘pro rata relief’). There has been an increasing […]

J du Plessis, ‘Equity, Fairness and Unjustified Enrichment: A Civil-Law Perspective’

CONCLUSION Although it is not infrequently said that the law of unjustified enrichment in civilian systems is based on ‘equity’, or that claims for restitution that nowadays are regarded as belonging to this area of law are ‘equitable’, it is hardly clear what this is supposed to mean. Taking South African law as point of […]

Matthew Conaglen, ‘Identifying The Profits For Which A Fiduciary Must Account’

ABSTRACT This article addresses the manner in which accounts of profits are quantified when they are ordered against fiduciaries. Unlike previous scholarship, which has often sought to explain recent case law by reference to preconceived conceptual models, the present article addresses the topic by drawing on the reasoning adopted in the cases over a longer […]

Jazmen Howard, ‘Unjustly Enriched Prisons: The Problem With Capitalizing on Captivity’

ABSTRACT This Note sheds light on state practices that take advantage of vulnerable, captive consumers: inmates. States regularly negotiate contracts relating to services and benefits for inmates, using inmates – a captive market – to enrich themselves. States make key decisions, force changes, and earn profits by implementing contracts that affect inmates and explicitly block […]