From: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>
To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Date: 11/01/2016 15:19:27 UTC
Subject: Re: [RDG] SC appeal in Patel v Mirza on 16 February
Dear Jason

Sorry, but I like the English Law Commission’s balancing approach and I also agree with them that until very recently this appeared to be the English courts’  direction of travel. I don’t accept that predictably arbitrary outcomes are preferable and let us not forget that the law is life and not logic (I must be getting older, or younger, or something – I never used to think that). Spot quiz: what do these three English judicial supporters of balancing have in common? Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson and Etherton C.

C

From: RDG <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca> on behalf of Jason Neyers <jneyers@UWO.CA>
Reply-To: Jason Neyers <jneyers@UWO.CA>
Date: Monday, 11 January 2016 14:49
To: RDG <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDG] SC appeal in Patel v Mirza on 16 February

Dear Charles:

What do you prefer to the Tinsley formulation? I can't see balancing as the answer. In contract and tort, I am fairly confident that the Hall v Hebert formulation of legal coherence is the best understanding of illegality but I have not given much thought to unjust enrichment (or how a Hall v Hebert coherence view would play out in that area of the law).  I would of course be interested in everyone's views on this.

Sincerely, 
Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
On 11/01/2016 9:12 AM, Mitchell, Charles wrote:
A date for everyone’s diary: the SC will hear the appeal in Patel v Mirza on 16 February. A nine member panel has been listed, presumably because it is anticipated that some of the existing HL and SC authorities on the illegality defence will have to be overruled (please let them overrule Tinsley). The panel includes Lords Sumption and Toulson who do not agree on this topic. CM
====

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>.


====

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>.

====

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>.