"The illegality in this case was the manufacture of the patented items in Canada, not their sale in England. " That doesn't work because: (i) Only one of the four defendants did that (and not the one doing the selling in England). and (ii) The claim was for losses caused by the fact that they had been restrained from selling in England, not for losses caused by (not?) manufacturing in Canada. So, even characterising the wrongfulness as the manufacturing in Canada, the claimants were never relying on doing that for the purposes of their claim for loss caused by the award of the English injunction, so that the illegality principle could never apply. R
====

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>.