Category Archives: Unjust enrichment

Andrew Burrows, ‘Illegality after Patel v Mirza

Abstract English law on illegality in private law (eg illegal contracts) has long been regarded as both difficult and unsatisfactory. In 2016, the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of nine, looked at the area again in Patel v Mirza. Here £620,000 had been paid for the defendant to bet on share prices using inside […]

Frederick Wilmot-Smith, ‘Should the Payee Pay?’

Abstract Other things being equal, the recipient of a mistaken payment must pay the money back. I argue that no one has given a good explanation of this rule; in particular, I argue that justifications have failed to explain why the payee is the appropriate person to fix the payor’s problem. € Frederick Wilmot-Smith, Should […]

Charles Mitchell, ‘Current Issues in Unjust Enrichment: The “Time Value” of Money and Proprietary Remedies for Failure of Basis’

Abstract The paper examines two issues in the English law of unjust enrichment that have been considered in recent case law: whether claims lie for the value of an opportunity to use money, and if so how these should be measured, and whether proprietary remedies should be awarded to claimants who succeed in establishing a […]

‘HLS Private Law Workshop: Rebecca Williams, The ECJ’s “Remedies Jurisprudence” and the Role of Domestic Courts’

“One of the major catalysts behind the resurgence in England and Wales of the law of unjust enrichment has been the influence of fundamental rights jurisprudence of the European Union. Where a member state levies charges on persons contrary to EU law (such as discriminatory taxes), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) recognizes an entitlement […]

Alvin See, ‘Unlocking Wrotham Park damages: Lord Cairns’ Act and loss of the ability to sue for future infringements’

Introduction Damages assessed by reference to a reasonable sum that a claimant could have charged the defendant for the relaxation of the infringed right, especially when awarded in circumstances where the claimant could not establish a traditional head of compensable loss, have attracted considerable debates, particularly relating to their theoretical underpinning. Despite statements by the […]

Victoria Stace, ‘The Vexed Topic of Equitable Contribution’

Abstract In a recent decision the New Zealand Supreme Court made significant changes to the doctrine of equitable contribution as that doctrine applies in New Zealand. The Court rejected the test previously applied to determine if the liabilities of two wrongdoers are sufficiently co-ordinate such that a right to claim contribution arises. In its place, […]

Just Published: Nahel Asfour, Wrongful Enrichment – A Study in Comparative Law and Culture

This book analyses enrichment law and its development and underpinning in social culture within three geographical regions: the United States, western members of the European Union and the late Ottoman Empire. These regions correspond, though imperfectly, with three different legal traditions: the American, continental and Islamic traditions. The book argues that we should understand law […]

Samuel Bray, ‘Remedies, Meet Economics; Economics, Meet Remedies’

Abstract: One would expect the fields of ‘law and economics’ and ‘remedies’ to have substantial interaction. But scholars in each field largely ignore those in the other. Thus law and economics scholars blunder in their description of the law of remedies, and remedies scholars are cut off from economic insights. For scholars who are in […]

Emily Hudson, ‘A Normative Approach to the Quistclose Trust’

Abstract: This is the first article to undertake a sustained analysis of normative justifications for the Quistclose trust. Whilst much of the existing writing on this topic has focused on the better classification of such trusts – for instance, whether they are express, resulting, constructive or sui generis – this article asks why the law […]

John Mee, ‘The Past, Present, and Future of Resulting Trusts’

Abstract: This article considers the nature and future of resulting trusts, and offers a critique of the Birks/Chambers theory of resulting trusts. It argues that the current law cannot be explained, as the Birks/Chambers theory suggests, on the basis of the reversal of unjust enrichment. Instead, the law of resulting trusts is based on an […]