Perhaps like other members of the group, I've been watching the live feed of the UK Supreme Court hearing in Pitt v Holt this afternoon, online at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/. Most interesting from the perspective of an unjust enrichment lawyer has been the argument made by Philip Jones QC, counsel for the Revenue, that the rules governing the recovery of mistaken gifts should require claimants to satisfy a more demanding test than the Barclays v Simms causative mistake test because gifts, like contracts, present transactional security issues that do not apply where other types of mistaken transfer have taken place.  More fun tomorrow. CM