Pardon me, but I have been arguing *precisely* that the one cannot exist without the other. It is *because* they cannot exist separately that it makes no sense to say that one is based on procedural considerations but the other on unjust enrichment.

Why did the Law Commission recommend that the courts be given the power to make restitutionary orders in the context of RSC Ord 53 proceedings? Because it thought that the plaintiff in a judicial review action who succeeded in having a public demand declared ultra vires would otherwise have no right in those proceedings to recover money paid pursuant to such a demand.

Well, if you want to equate a public authority's demand for an unlawful tax with a court's demand for compliance with a judgment that turns out to be misguided, that's up to you. I would have said that the two situations were rather different, not least because the need for finality in adjudication is far greater in the case of the courts.

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