Dear Members,

The English Court of Appeal has recently handed down a short decision on unjust enrichment in Costello & Anor v MacDonald & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 930 (29 July 2011) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/930.html. It is another building case, and the simple question was whether 'Mr and Mrs Costello can be held liable in restitution for unjust enrichment when the services of the respondents from which they have benefited were given pursuant to a contract between a third party, Oakwood, and the respondents.' The Court of Appeal held that they could not be held so liable, and allowed the appeal. There are some observations on the allocation of contractual risk and inconsistent remedies, but it is also of note as it is, I believe, the first English judgment to cite the High Court of Australia's decision in Lumbers v Cook (cited for its reasoning on contractual allocation of risk, not for its scepticism as regards a 'principle' of unjust enrichment).

Best wishes,

JL

--
James Lee
Lecturer and Director of Careers
Academic Fellow of the Inner Temple
Birmingham Law School
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)121 414 3629
E-mail: j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk<mailto:j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk>



Web: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/law/lee-james.aspx

====

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>.