| From: | Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA> |
| To: | ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA |
| Date: | 11/01/2016 15:22:40 UTC |
| Subject: | Re: [RDG] SC appeal in Patel v Mirza on 16 February |
They have all been Chairman of the Law Commission.
The Jetivia appeal last year was very odd in that the Court said they really should look at illegality at some point, but seemingly not in the instant appeal,
when they had convened a panel of seven.
Is there any chance they migh just narrowly focus on locus poenitentiae?
Best,
James
--
James Lee
Senior Lecturer in Private Law
Director of UG Admissions and Scholarships
The Dickson Poon School of Law
Somerset House East Wing
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
E-mail:
james.lee@kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 2363
Profile:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/people/academic/j-lee.aspx
Newly Published: Jamie Glister and James
Lee (eds), Hanbury & Martin: Modern Equity (20th edition, 2015), Sweet & Maxwell:
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?recordid=6430&searchorigin=hanbury&productid=632503
From: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues [mailto:ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA]
On Behalf Of Mitchell, Charles
Sent: 11 January 2016 15:19
To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
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>.
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>.