Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Full text of Nurdin v. Ramsden is now on the website : go to http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/ restitution/restitution.htm and follow Cases; England and Wales; Nurdin.

For myself, I cannot see that the case contributes much to the debate on what sorts of mistakes will ground a restitutionary remedy.

The payments were plainly meant to discharge a liability for rent, and so, as the rent was not in fact owing, recovery is unsurprising under the "failure of basis" theory.

The "mistake" theory runs into rather more difficulties - including an unusually pure example of the "Cretan Liar" paradox for one of the payments - but is saved by Neuberger J on the strength of an implied contract. And we're all in favour of implied contracts, especially when they satisfy the needs of justice, aren't we ? Of course we are.

For that matter, Neuberger J makes it perfectly clear that he would have decided the case the same way even if Kleinwort Benson had never happened; insofar as there were any "mistakes" in the case, they were mistakes of fact..

Therefore, while plainly the basis of recovery in "mistake" cases, post Kleinwort Benson, will have to be resolved sooner or later, Nurdin hardly touches on it.

Steve Hedley

===================================================
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931
messages : (01223) 334900
fax : (01223) 334967

Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU
===================================================