Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Gerhard Dannemann |
| Date: |
Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:36 |
| Re: |
Yeoman's Row |
Having now finally read the case, I wonder whether the following is another exercise in fence-sitting, or a conscious or unconscious shift towards a no basis approach.
Lord Scott begins his treatment of "Unjust enrichment" in this case with the following words:
40. There is no doubt but that the value of the property will have been increased by the grant of planning permission and that the appellant has, accordingly, been enriched by the grant of the permission for which it has had to pay nothing. Since the planning permission was obtained at the expense of Mr Cobbe it is very easy to conclude that the appellant has been enriched at his expense and, in the circumstances that I need not again rehearse, unjustly enriched. So, in principle, he is entitled to a common law remedy for unjust enrichment. Failed consideration is mentioned in para 43, under a separate heading "Consideration which has wholly failed", but not really as an additional requirement for an unjust enrichment claim - as this comes after establishing the quantum of the enrichment which Lord Scott describes as recoverable, this looks more to me like excluding a defence (total failure of consideration).
Any other views or intelligence on this matter?
Robert Stevens wrote:
Recovery of value of work done in anticipation of a contract which never arises. 5-0 claim allowed on the basis of unjust enrichment.
Plenty on proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts too.
Rather a stark contrast with the approach of the HC of A a few weeks ago.
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
