Enrichment and Ownership (Ross Grantham, 30 Jul 1998)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Ross Grantham
Date:	Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:00:56 +1200
Re:	Enrichment and Ownership

The Group may be interested to know that we have written a reasonably lengthy note of Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck. It will appear in the LMCLQ, hopefully the November issue. The case is noteworthy for its rejection of the concept of enrichment as a purely factual issue and the CA's apparent acceptance that in cases where the plaintiff retains title recovery is a response to the plaintiff's rights of ownership not to any unjust enrichment.

As to Eoin's reference to a vindicatio in equity, the decision in Brown v Bennett is also notable. The Group is referred to our note in the July issue of the LQR ("Liability for Interfering in a Breach of Trust")

Ross Grantham
Charles Rickett
University of Auckland

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.