Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Members of the group may be interested to read Millett LJ's judgment in Portman Building Soc v Hamlyn Taylor Neck (a firm), 22 April 1998, in connection with the question whether a claim in unjust enrichment will lie against a defendant who has received a plaintiff's property in circumstances which are such that the plaintiff retains title to the property. The case concerned a claim for money had and received by a building society against a firm of solicitors to whom the society had paid money in connection with a mortgage loan transaction, which the firm had subsequently paid over to the borrower. The unjust factor pleaded was mistake - the society alleged that it had parted with the money because it had mistakenly believed the property against which the loan was secured to be more valuable than proved to be the case. Millett LJ rejected the action as 'entirely misconceived', for the reason that he did not think the society had been enriched by its receipt of the money: 'The money was trust money, which belonged in equity to the Society, and was properly paid by the firm into its client account. ... The firm did not receive the money for its own use and benefit, but to the Society's use. Given that the money was held to the order of the Society, the only question is whether the firm obtained a good discharge for the money. It is conceded that it did.'  

_____________________________

Dr Charles Mitchell
Lecturer in Law
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS

tel: 0171 873 2290
fax: 0171 873 2465