Restitution Flashcards
Plan for a Restitution Q
Definition
Has the defendant benefitted?
Was the enrichment at claimant’s expense?
Was the enrichment unjust?
Defences
Restitution
A remedy used to deal with cases of unjust enrichment
Purpose of restitution:
To “correct normatively defective transfers of value by restoring both parties to their pre-transfer positions”
Investment Trust Companies.
Has the defendant been enriched?
Enrichment can be both direct or indirect
Examples of enrichment
Paying an amount of money.
Conferring on the defendant a sort of benefit.
Saving the defendant from incurring an expense.
Discharging an obligation that the defendant has to another.
Indirect Enrichment
Paying a debt owed by the defendant.
Abating a nuisance caused by the defendant.
Providing goods or services to the defendant.
Was the enrichment at claimant’s expense?
The claimant must have suffered a loss that was sufficiently close to the defendant’s gain.
(Causal Link) Uren v First National
Was enrichment unjust?
This is achieved by referring to the established non-exhaustive grounds for restitution.
Grounds for restitution
Mistake Duress Undue influence Necessity Failure of consideration* Ultra Vires Illegality
Paying a debt owed by the defendant.
NBE sought return of a bank loan amounting to $5 Million. NBE succeeded in claim for restitution after court found that the payment was intended to discharge a debt.
National Bank of Egypt v Oman Housing Bank
Abating a nuisance caused by the defendant.
Plaintiff entitled to restitution - from sanitary authority - for expenses incurred when taking it upon himself to abate nuisance caused by water and sewage.
Gebhardt v Saunders
Provision of goods and services (indirect enrichment)
Goods and services must have been:
Requested
Acquiesced (Free Acceptance)
Resulted in Incontrovertible benefit
Requested (goods and services)
Rowe applied - and was granted application - for JR to demand payment for sewage services provided without contractual agreement.
Rowe v Vale of White Horse
Incontrovertible Benefit (goods and services)
“Justice required that a person who had a benefit, by a mistake, for which he knew that he had not bargained or paid, should reimburse the value of that benefit to the other party if it was readily returnable “.
Cressman v Coys of Kensington
Acquiesced (goods and services)
Preparatory works, in the form of services, were carried out for Ds benefit.
Claimant could recover a reasonable sum where the Defendant had benefitted from his work.
Marston Construction v Kigass
