Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Steve Hedley's latest contribution falls back on a familiar theme that I suppose he will never let go of - that discussion of the principle of unjust enrichment is a complete waste of time. Some people just don't believe that. The courts don't either. Let's take just one example. It used to be thought that, outside contract, rights of subrogation comprised a miscellany which could not be explained by reference to a single principle. The House of Lords have now said unequivocally that that is wrong: Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) [1999] 1 AC 221 (HL). In fact, rights of subrogation outside contract are explained by the principle of unjust enrichment. There we are: the principle has helped to better the law. Is that not a useful purpose served by those who have shown that the principle of unjust enrichment exists? In a precedent-based system, I am afraid Banque Financière, and (for example) Lord Steyn's reference to the "established principles of unjust enrichment", just cannot be overlooked.

Of course unjust enrichment does not just explain complex topics like subrogation. It also explains cases in which even the pedestrian would, when asked what the result should be, say 'That's obvious!'. And by explaining the obvious cases, no doubt the principle will help to explain more and more difficult cases as well.