Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Dear All

In an attempt to redeem myself from my earlier booboo (and I do hope that none of my clients and/or former students are privy to this list) may I say that in my view, as a matter of trite law, (a) the payee (store owner) may retain the payment by showing that the 'enrichment' is not unjust; (b) consideration had been given for the payment; and/or (c) there had been a change of position in reliance on the payment. But I suppose that Mr Sheehan's real question is whether, given that the money was bona fide owed to the payee, restitution must be made on the basis that that obligation became unenforceable - for falling foul of the limitation period - at the date of the payment? Equity would surely intervene to ensure that no restitution need be made under these circumstances. However, whether there exists a doctrine under English law to support that position is, in my view doubtful. This might be a case of, to use Lord Goff's words, there being 'a chronic lack of support'.

Louis Joseph