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 had always been taught that the law is made up of a sequence of syllogisms. Minor premise (facts) + major premise (law) = conclusion (legal consequence). Unjust enrichment creeps into the Lord Archer issue to explain the leap from the setting aside of the judgment to the repayment of money paid under it.

Just as:

Minor: Criminal conviction quashed
Conclusion: Person let out

leaves room for

Major: person detained other than by virtue of a valid judicial determination must be let out

and this major premise belongs to the law of civil liberties

in the same way:

Minor: civil judgment for damages set aside
Conclusion: the damages must be repaid

leaves room for

Major: money paid under a judgment which has been set aside must be repaid.

Whether this major premise is a specific rule or part of a wider general principle, I will not comment on. However, it seems *reasonable* to classify it as part of a Law of *Restitution*. Those who deny that there is any need for this because the repayment of the money is *obvious* should perhaps try to think of it this way: it is because it is so obvious that we cannot deny a place for the Law of Restitution. Lord Wright pointed out that no civilised legal system can be without principles dealing with unjust enrichment. Just because these principles are obvious does not mean that we do not need them to be expounded. That would be tantamount to saying that just because it is obvious that, when a conviction is quashed, the person should be let out, there is no need to expound the principles of Civil Liberties.

Matthew Scully.
Oxford Institute of Legal Practice.