Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

In relation to the unjust enrichment point, a similar approach was taken by the New Zealand High Court in Bomac Laboratories Ltd v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2002) 7 NZBLC 103,627. That judgment related to protests to jurisdiction by foreign defendants in the context of alleged price-fixing of vitamins and vitamin products.

One cause of action was "unjust enrichment". The defendants argued that unjust enrichment does not yet have the status of a discrete cause of action in New Zealand (para 132), and that the plaintiffs' claim did not fall within any traditionally recognised category of unjust factor (para 136). On this point Justice Harrison concluded as follows:

"Based on this brief survey of what is a complex and uncertain area of the law, I am satisfied that on the facts already discussed Bomac has a good arguable case or there is a serious issue to be tried on its claim for restitution. I repeat my acknowledgement that the common law of New Zealand does not yet specifically recognise a cause of action for unjust enrichment of the type pleaded by Bomac. Nevertheless it would be wrong to deprive the company of the opportunity to argue for that proposition at trial where there is a respectable body of authority available to support this head of claim" (para 139).

Regards
Laura O'Gorman

-----Original Message-----

From: Lionel Smith
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2002 2:17
To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Subject: [RDG:] Epilogue to Roxborough: Cauvin v Philip Morris

I forward this message on behalf of Christopher Archibald:

.........