If recovery was allowed in Nurdin & Peacock v Ramsden, where the mistake was one as to the existence of a right to recover, then it is difficult to see why it should not be allowed in this case. However, in Nurdin, the overpayments had not been due in the first place. In Duncan Sheehan's scenario, the price of the desk was due but the right to sue for the price was extinguished by the expiration of the limitation period. The concept of "natural obligation" (purists will shudder) may be of use here in denying the right to recover the price of the desk which was paid after seven years.

As a matter of obligation, the money is always owed even if, as a matter of procedure, it cannot be sued for.

Alternatively, if Nurdin can be analysed as a "failure of basis" case (i.e. whether or not there is a mistake is irrelevant, what counts is that the overpayment was not due), then there is room to distinguish this scenario on the grounds that the basis for the payment of the price is the contract for the sale of the desk, which remains even though the vendor's right to sue has been extinguished.

Matthew Scully.
Oxford Institute of Legal Practice.