In Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic FC
[2008] EWCA Civ 1449, the (English) CA accepted that free acceptance can establish enrichment and also a reason why D's enrichment is unjust, but the majority held that it was not made out on the facts. The majority's reading of the facts was less persuasive,
though, than Maurice Kay LJ's dissenting view to the contrary. Essentially, the claimant insisted on providing more policing services at home games staged by the defendant club than the club thought were necessary, and the club accepted the services while
refusing to pay for them but in the knowledge that the claimant expected to be paid and also in the knowledge that if the services were not laid on then the claimant would not issue a safety certificate for the matches without which they could not have taken
place. Patten J has now expressed a preference for Maurice Kay J's analysis in
Benedetti v Sawaris [2009] EWHC 1330 (Ch) at [575]; in the same paragraph he also finds that recovery in UE should be allowed on the ground of free acceptance on the facts of
Benedetti: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1330. CM
Professor Charles Mitchell
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465
====
This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,
an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law
of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in
the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe,
send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to
all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is
run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.