======================================================================== = Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:12:36 +0100 Reply-To: Michael Rush Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Michael Rush Subject: The Defence of Passing On In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050608142302.01290fc8@pop1.kcl.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 The High Court of Australia today handed down a decision concerning (a statutory invocation of) the defence of passing on. The defence, on the facts, was upheld. The case is: Avon Products Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] HCA 29 The joint judgment can be found here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2006/29.html A summary of the case can be found here: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/media/Avon_vTax_Commissioner.pdf Michael ____________________________________________________________________ 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, . ======================================================================== = Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:46:30 +1000 Reply-To: Jonathon Moore Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Jonathon Moore Subject: Pleading a claim in unjust enrichment / Duress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit These interesting topics were explored by Weinberg J in the Federal Court of Australia today: Lactos Fresh Pty Ltd v Finishing Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 748, to be read with Lactos Fresh Pty Ltd v Finishing Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 219. Regards Jonathon ____________________________________________________________________ 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, . ======================================================================== = Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:07:54 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: Serhan v. Johnson & Johnson In-Reply-To: <94A1DD3D45C48544BBD70CEADC27E08D735516@ab- exch.airdberlis.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3233729274_215788" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not > understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3233729274_215788 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable There was some discussion recently about the decision of Cullity J to certify a class action last year in Serhan v Johnson & Johnson. John Swan has mentioned to me that the Divisional Court has affirmed this decision, 2-1, applying the test whether it was =8Cplain and obvious=B9 that the claim could not succeed. Contrary to my own interpretation of Cullity J=B9s judgment, and in line with what Robert Chambers said, Cullity J was understood as having held that waiver of tort is an independent cause of action. The DC holds that it is not plain and obvious that this is incorrect, with a good review of different academic theories on both sides. Also a good review of the four-part test for constructive trusts in Soulos. Judgment at 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, . --B_3233729274_215788 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Serhan v. Johnson & Johnson There= was some discussion recently about the decision of Cullity J to certify a c= lass action last year in Serhan v Johnson & Johnson. John Swan has menti= oned to me that the Divisional Court has affirmed this decision, 2-1, applyi= ng the test whether it was ‘plain and obvious’ that the claim co= uld not succeed.

Contrary to my own interpretation of Cullity J’s judgment, and in lin= e with what Robert Chambers said, Cullity J was understood as having held th= at waiver of tort is an independent cause of action. The DC holds that it is= not plain and obvious that this is incorrect, with a good review of differe= nt academic theories on both sides. Also a good review of the four-part test= for constructive trusts in Soulos.

Judgment at <http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onscdc/2006/2006onscdc14357.ht ml&g= t;

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 <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. --B_3233729274_215788-- ======================================================================== = Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:30:02 +0100 Reply-To: Charles Mitchell Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Charles Mitchell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If any member of the group is a practitioner who is undertaking, or contemplating, a research project leading to a publication of interest to other practitioners, may I draw your attention to the Alexander Maxwell Law Scholarship Trust, which makes grants to enable work of this kind? The closing date for the current round of applications is the end of September. Details can be obtained via the Trust website: http://www.amlst.org.uk/ -- Charles Mitchell charles.mitchell@kcl.ac.uk ____________________________________________________________________ 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, .