Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Since in his message, dated 04 October 2000 17:50, Lionel revealed that to him I seem to speak in riddles, presumably it behoves me to attempt to explain why, in the situation covered by Bowen, L.J.'s assertion, I consider the recovery of mesne profits to be a defensible outcome.

Mesne profits are a form of damages - Elliott v. Boynton [1924] 1 Ch. 236 at 250 per Warrington, L.J. Yet they are not limited to the demonstrable damage (if any) suffered by the plaintiff, who may recover under this head the full potential value of the land to the defendant trespasser for the period of the defendant's wrongful occupation - Inverugie Investments v. Hackett [1995] 1 W.L.R. 713 P.C. In my respectful submission, this is not restitution based on a general theory of unjust enrichment. The trespasser has wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of the land and so is caught by the maxim, "In odium spoliatoris omnia praesumuntur", which is, being interpreted, "Everything is presumed to the prejudice of a plunderer." Accordingly it is presumed that the full potential value of the land to the trespasser would have been available to the plaintiff. This is the maxim, which I was taught to be the warrant for Vice-Chancellor Wood's "second principle", stated in Frith v. Cartland (1865) 2 H. & M. 417 at 420: "... if a man mixes trust funds with his own, the whole will be treated as the trust property, except so far as he may be able to distinguish what is his own". It would also justify the presumption, to which the same judge (then Lord Hatherley, L.C.) referred in Burdick v. Garrick (1870) 5 Ch. App. 233 at 241-2 and which requires a fiduciary to pay compound interest on money wrongfully invested by him in trade.

In his message, my particular speaking in riddles of which Lionel complained was, "... to try to explain liabilities which do not depend on authority or agreement as somehow dependent on ratification, authority, or assumpsit ...". In my respectful submission, Lord Tenterden, C.J.K.B.'s exposition in Stone v. Marsh (1827) 6 B. & C. 551 at 565, which I quote in [2000] R.L.R. at 213, shows any such riddle to be purely imaginary.