It was his simultaneous claim that it was an action for damages *and* an action for unjust enrichment that I found odd. Especially as it was in answer to the question about the mechanism for re-opening a libel claim.

That is precisely the sort of thing that a reporter in a hurry might scribble down, but a lawyer is very unlikely to have said. How many of the people on this list would answer the question "How do you re-open a mistaken judgment ?" with "You would make a claim in unjust enrichment" ? And in the unlikely event that you had said that, would you really follow it with "This is an action for damages" ?.

If the judgment is set aside, what are the parties rights then? The answer is that The Daily Star has a claim in unjust enrichment - the specific unjust factor probably being that payment was made under what has turned out to be illegitimate pressure.

I am surprised to hear that the enforcement machinery becomes "illegitimate" simply because the judgment it enforces should never have been made. I would have said that court enforcement machinery is the classic example of *lawful* pressure.

See Charles Mitchell's input for the authorities.

Charles has mentioned three cases, none of which makes any mention of "unjust enrichment". I am not sure what your point is.

It is not much help saying that if the judgment is set aside "then obviously the money is recoverable". The question is WHY is it recoverable?

I find it somewhat surprising that you can understand what it means to say that a judgment is overturned, and yet feel the need for some explanation of why the money is being returned. "The question is WHY is it recoverable" answers itself. As an analogy, consider someone who says "I understand that this man's criminal conviction has been quashed, but why are they letting him out of jail ?" Wouldn't that be a strange thing to say ?

As for Charles' latest point, that the party who has to return the money may :

require a plain statement from the Court that it is lawful to do so

the answer is that the court is merely recognising a pre-existing obligation. It is a common thing in litigation for someone to say "I know I am liable, but I need to be able to prove to others that that is the reason I paid". But I am surprised to hear that the court is *creating* the liability when it gives the requested confirmation.

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
===================================================