Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I agree that the question is largely procedural, but it still might be important to know the exact ground under which the money is recoverable if the judgment can be re-opened. I agree too that it seems obvious that the money should be repaid if the judgment can be re-opened, but if it's under "unjust enrichment", presumably Lord Archer is prima facie entitled to a change of position defence. It would be interesting to see if, due to the special facts of this case, his subsequent change of position might not be "bona fide". However, the more important point is one of categorising the Daily Star's cause of action: if it's restitutionary damages for a wrong, and thus not "autonomous" unjust enrichment or if it's because "it's obvious" why should change of position apply ? More generally, which of these so-called "policy-motivated" (whatever that means) unjust enrichment claims should change of position apply to: might the principle of upholding legality (see e.g. Woolwich) mean change of position should not apply? If so, and if change of position is about valuing enrichments, are these "policy-motivated" cases about enrichment at all? Perhaps, like one of Lord Archer's esteemed novels, a superficially simple plot hides greater complexities and intrigue ? Or perhaps not.

Ben McFarlane