Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:33:38 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: biggest mistaken payment ever MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Further news today on the $3.3 billion which our federal government overpaid to some provincial governments over a period of years. They want only $1.4 bil back, over 10 years. For reasons which are not made clear, most of it is to come from Ontario, which claims it has all been spent on schools. Less sympathetically, the Ontario Finance Minister says, ""It's a federal tax error and they're asking Ontario residents to pay." This overlooks the crucial insight into Canadian politics: "there is only one taxpayer." Globe and Mail: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020904/wprov903/Front/homeBN/bre akingnews (If the URL breaks over more than one line it will not be clickable and you will have to cut and paste the whole thing into your browser.) Lionel ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635, email . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:05:23 -0400 Reply-To: Jason Neyers Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Jason Neyers Organization: University of Western Ontario Subject: SYMPOSIUM ANNOUNCEMENT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SYMPOSIUM ANNOUNCEMENT On Saturday January 25th, 2003, the University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law will be hosting a one-day symposium entitled "Understanding Unjust Enrichment". This symposium will provide an unique opportunity for those interested in unjust enrichment to come together and discuss the many conceptual issues still surrounding the topic. Confirmed symposium participants (presenters, commentators and chairs) are: Charles Rickett, (Auckland) Ernest Weinrib (Toronto) Andrew Burrows (Oxford) Andrew Kull (Boston) John D. McCamus (Osgoode Hall) Gerald Fridman (U.W.O.) Kit Barker (Southampton) Lionel Smith (McGill) Jeffrey B. Berryman (Windsor) Mitchell McInnes (U.W.O.) Robert Chambers (Alberta) Allan Beever (Auckland) Stephen Smith (McGill) David P. Stevens (Goodman and Carr LLP) Dennis Klimchuk (U.W.O.) The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe (Ontario Court of Appeal) The papers likely to be presented include: "What Makes an Unjust Enrichment Unjust?" "A Critique of the Canadian Law of Unjust Enrichment" "The Australian Understanding of Unjust Enrichment" "Spousal Relationships and Unjust Enrichment: Quantum Meruit or Constructive Trust?" "Similar Evolutions?: Negligence and Unjust Enrichment" "A Comparison of the Common Law and Jewish Law on Unrequested Benefits" "Unjust Enrichment and Filial Responsibility" "The Basis of Unjust Enrichment and the Conflict of Laws" Several other papers whose titles are still to be announced will also be presented. The cost to attend the symposium is C$100 which includes a continental breakfast and lunch. A dinner will be held after the symposium and the cost to attend is a further C$50. Hotel accommodation is available at the Windermere Manor which is conveniently located on the edge of the campus. The symposium rate for the hotel is C$102 (plus applicable taxes) per night. The University of Western Ontario is located in London, Ontario, which is approximately 200 kilometres south-west of Toronto. London is well-served by frequent bus, rail and air connections from Toronto. If you are interested in attending the symposium or wish to discuss the possibility of presenting a paper, please contact: Jason W. Neyers Assistant Professor of Law Faculty of Law University of Western Ontario N6A 3K7 (519) 661-2111 x. 88435 jneyers@uwo.ca Please feel free to pass on this message to all those who might be interested. ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635, email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:32:15 +0800 Reply-To: Low Fatt Kin Kelvin Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Low Fatt Kin Kelvin Subject: New Case Note in the SJLS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The July 2002 issue of the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies contains = one case note relevant to restitution: RESTITUTIONARY RECOVERY EX AEQUO ET BONO by Ross Grantham This is a note on Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd and = may be accessed (in pdf form) at = http://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/articles/SJLS_Comments2_Jul02.pdf The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies invites subscriptions and = submissions from all members of the Restitution Discussion Group. All = enquiries on overseas subscription and submissions should be sent to: = lawlfkk@nus.edu.sg. The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies website can = be found at http://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/index.htm where selected = articles, including a number of articles relevant to restitution, from = past and current issues may be accessed for free. Low Fatt Kin, Kelvin Assistant Professor Faculty of Law National University of Singapore 13 Law Link Singapore 117590 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635, email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:28:47 +0100 Reply-To: Charles Mitchell Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Charles Mitchell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Following the Law Commission's Report on the subject (take a bow, Prof Burrows) the English Department of Health has announced a proposal to extend the NHS costs recovery regime to include recovery of hospital and ambulance costs in all cases of personal injury compensation, and has issued a consultation document inviting views on this proposal: Department of Health, The Recovery of National Health Service Costs in Cases involving Personal Injury Compensation: A Consultation (2002), available online at http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhscosts/recoverycosts.pdf ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635, email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:57:01 +0100 Reply-To: Steve Hedley Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Steve Hedley Subject: Recovery of hospital and ambulance costs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:28:47 +0100, Charles Mitchell wrote: >Following the Law Commission's Report on the subject (take a bow,=20 >Prof Burrows) the English Department of Health has announced a=20 >proposal to extend the NHS costs recovery regime to include=20 >recovery of hospital and ambulance costs in all cases of personal=20 >injury compensation, and has issued a consultation document=20 >inviting views on this proposal: Department of Health, The Recovery=20 >of National Health Service Costs in Cases involving Personal Injury=20 >Compensation: A Consultation (2002), available online at >http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhscosts/recoverycosts.pdf Thanks to Charles for bringing our attention to this. It is interesting for the blatant appeal - in a law reform proposal! - to a principle of "avoiding unjust enrichment" as justifying the extended liability (para 4.6). It is nice to see the admission that the "principle" is one for re-shaping the law, rather than merely for re-stating it. (Though we could have wished that the admission had come a little earlier.) It is no longer obvious today, as it was to one writer last century, that " 'unjust' can never be made to draw on an unknowable justice in the sky". However, as Buxton LJ has already pointed out, this is a position of some logical difficulty - for if the supposed principle really extends this far, why is it necessary to REFORM the law to recognise it? (See Law Com 262 para 3.22 note 27.) =20 As to the merits of the proposal, I suppose it is really a question of whether the end (to get more money for the NHS) justify the means (making the customers of dangerous employers pay more). Stated in practical terms, the proposal is to charge the insurers of tortfeasors for NHS costs occasioned by the tort. The insurers will, of course, pass this on to their clients (overwhelmingly private employers). The private employers will, of course, pass it on to their customers. But will the customers notice? Para 4.16 notes that while the proposal means an increase of about 7% in insurance premiums, in fact those same premiums are about to go through the roof for quite different reasons. So, nudge nudge wink wink, if the government enacts this proposal very quickly, they will be able to extract the contemplated =A3120m from the public without anyone noticing. If anyone questions why premiums have gone up, it is calculated that this contribution will seem too small to mention.=20 Whether this is regarded as astute financial planning, or as a cynical way of raising the public burden on the taxpayer without having to admit what they are up to, may simply be a matter of taste. =20 Steve Hedley =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20 FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE e-mail : steve.hedley@law.cam.ac.uk ansaphone : +44 1223 334931 www.stevehedley.com fax : +44 1223 334967 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635, email . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:30:51 -0400 Reply-To: John Swan Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: John Swan Subject: Re: Recovery of hospital and ambulance costs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As a footnote to the discussion of the allocation of the costs of industrial accidents in the UK (which seems from a North American perspective to move the UK to a system of workers' compensation closer to the North American model), the issue of the interrelation of the UK regime and Canadian regimes was raised in the recent case of Garrett Estate v. Cameco Corp. (2001), 38 C.C.L.I. (3d) 81, (Sask. Q.B.). That case illustrates how an insurer dealt with the claims of Canadian widows to compensation for the deaths of their husbands in a helicopter crash in Kyrgyzstan and the appropriate statutory scheme to apply (by analogy only) to fix the amount. The inapplicability of the UK regime to deal appropriately with the problems was vividly illustrated. The case also illustrates (in an extract from the evidence of an officer of the insurer) how an insurer may sometimes struggle to deal fairly and not technically with claims which, arguably, could have been dismissed. John Swan (McGill University) ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635, email .