ABSTRACT
When authoritative recognition of unjust(ified) enrichment as an independent cause of action was given in Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 Malayan Law Journal 441, the Federal Court simultaneously imported the four-stage analytical framework (‘enrichment’ ‘at the plaintiff’s expense’ in circumstances which render the enrichment ‘unjust(ified)’ and where no ‘defences’ apply) into Malaysian law. With reference to post-Dream Property case law, this article will hone in on the second of those elements, which the Malaysian courts have delayed addressing. In line with modern Anglo-American scholarship, the Malaysian courts should recognise that the ‘at the expense of’ component is not itself a single legal test to be interpreted literally and loosely, but a multi-faceted guide on a diverse array of sub-issues, including the search for a qualifying nexus, the need for correspondence between loss and gain, and the recovery of incidental and consequential benefits. It also argues that the Federal Court’s inclusion of an unconscionability inquiry in its ‘at the expense of’ model should be abrogated.
Choi, John (Ching Jack), Unjust Enrichment in Malaysia: ‘At the Expense Of’ (December 12, 2023), [2023] 4 Malayan Law Journal lv.
Leave a Reply