Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Isn't D's enrichment justified by the terms of the Housing Act? That says (in effect), No notice - or whatever -, no valuable tenancy. Is there anything unjust about relying on the clear terms of a statute, which would be nullified if B had a claim?

Andrew

Unjust enrichment, an interesting case.

I have a case which is proceeding quite happily on other grounds, namely negligent misrepresentation. However during the course of reading James Edelman's book on Gain Based Damages, it occurred to me that it may also fit into the sphere of unjust enrichment.

Here is the situation:

A is a tenant. B is his son. C is a local council which owned a number of properties let as secure tenancies under the 1985 housing act. D is a housing association to whom the properties were transferred under provisions in the 1985 act making it a primarily 1988 housing act tenancy. The resulting tenancy granted to A allowed for rights of succession from which if B was informed could have benefited him if he exercised them correctly, in which case he would have the benefit of a valuable tenancy, with the right to buy at a substantial discount.

That much is common ground. There are disputes as to the detail of what followed, and I won't go into that. However the following is also not in dispute.

A died. For what ever reason B did not exercise his rights correctly. As a result D ended up with a windfall, in that the property it owned with certain costly obligations it now owned with out those obligations. Further more the value of B's assets took a substantial hit in that he no longer enjoyed valuable rights. All these rights have finite financial value, and they are equivalent in that the value B has lost D has gained.

The question is then has D become unjustly enriched at the expense of B assuming that there is no clear attributable fault. It is B's failure to act for whatever reason that has caused the transfer of value. If this enrichment is unjust can B recover his losses through the doctrine of unjust enrichment?

Any thoughts?

Kind regards

Benedict White