![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
While reading the recent Victorian Supreme Court case
of Andrew
Shelton & Co Pty Ltd v. Alpha Healthcare Ltd, I came across an
eye-catching statement from Warren J:
"... in Australia it seems at this time that free acceptance
is a recognised restitutionary ground".
Much of Warren J's judgment is devoted to findings of
fact. The plaintiff (Shelton), contended that the defendant company was
obliged to remunerate him for advisory work he had undertaken in facilitating
a $30 million transaction, and which the defendant benefited from. Complications
arose because:
1. Shelton and the defendant never entered into a formal
contract for services; and Warren J upheld Shelton's claim based on unjust enrichment.
The unjust factor used to support Shelton's argument, was that of free
acceptance.
While Shelton also initially claimed in contract, estoppel,
breach of confidence and quantum meruit [sic], these were either abandoned
or dismissed. Counsel appears not to have made an argument based on failure
of consideration.
Only passing reference is made to the debate as to whether
free acceptance should found a claim for restitution (in particular the
writing of Andrew Burrows). Instead, emphasis is placed on the views of
Goff & Jones and Michael Bryan, and interpretations of the Australian
cases Pavey
& Matthews v. Paul, Brenner and Angelopoulos.
It is also interesting to the note that Gummow J's dicta
regarding the place of restitution in Australia (see Roxborough
v. Rothmans), seems now to require the attention of first instance
judges when reliance is placed on unjust enrichment reasoning.
The case can be found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2002/248.html
________________________________ <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |