“Has the law of restitution and unjust enrichment become too elaborate and technical, too complicated to be useful in the general run of cases? Perhaps it has. For the past 40 years, the dynamo of doctrinal development has been the big public law disputes: first the ‘swaps’ cases, then a succession of issues over taxes wrongly paid. In those mega-cases, with millions at stake on every claim, technicality ruled the roost: no legal point was too small to be taken, every doctrinal avenue could be explored, complexity was what all expected and (to their horror or fascination) all found. Unsurprisingly, the doctrine which has emerged is full of uncertainties, gaps, unresolved questions …”
Steve Hedley, Restitution and Car Crashes: A Simple Case of Mistake, Cambridge Law Journal, Volume 80, Issue 1, March 2021, pp 36-39, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197321000234.