½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

Restitution, unjust enrichment and related claims


What is a restitutionary claim?

Restitution in English law is a remedy that aims to restore to an innocent party the gains that someone else has obtained from them.

In Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale, the House of Lords gave formal recognition to the law of restitution as being separate to any element of contract law—the law of restitution is not based upon implied contract; rather it is based upon the principle that unjust enrichments must be reversed. This independence of the law of restitution and its foundation in the principle that unjust enrichments must be reversed and the need to distinguish clearly between the law of contract and the law of restitution was affirmed by the House of Lords in their 1998 decision in Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd.

Restitution can be divided into two distinct categories:

  1. •

    restitution for unjust enrichment, and

  2. •

    restitution for wrongdoing

Commonly recognised scenarios arising when discussing restitutionary claims include:

  1. •

    actions for money had and received (unjust enrichment)

  2. •

    restitutionary damages for equitable or tortious wrongs

  3. •

    claims for an account of profits

  4. •

    relief

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

MoJ publishes annual report and accounts for 2023-2024

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has released its annual report and accounts for the financial year 2023-2024 on 14 November 2024. This comprehensive document outlines the department's activities, performance against strategic objectives, governance structures and resource utilisation for the year ending 31 March 2024. Prepared in accordance with HM Treasury's Government Financial Reporting Manual, the report consolidates results from the core department, executive agencies and relevant arm's length bodies.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes the minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s meeting of 4 October 2024 and the Supreme Court decision in Unite the Union v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus (rectification); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Misrepresentation, implied terms and settlement agreements (Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd centred on the interpretation and alleged breach of a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in relation to a previous set of proceedings. In this judgment, which serves as a helpful reference for practitioners on several legal issues, the High Court considered whether misrepresentations contained in a party’s pleadings may be actionable, as well as the circumstances in which representations, either express or implied, made during the course of a mediation could form the basis of a claim in misrepresentation, in the absence of a finding of unambiguous impropriety. The court also considered the test for implication of terms into the settlement agreement, and the law applicable to the construction of express contractual terms, ultimately finding the defendant to be liable for breach of an express and/or implied term of the settlement agreement, and in misrepresentation for statements made during the course of the mediation which led to the conclusion thereof. Written by Emily Lodge, associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

Court of Appeal clarifies correct approach to application of liability caps when calculating quantum in contractual disputes (Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd)

TMT analysis: This case centres around the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of a software services agreement, specifically the wording around limitation of liability. In particular, the court considered three main questions for the purposes of calculating quantum—the amount to which the contractual liability cap should be applied; whether the liability cap should be applied after considering set-off, or before; and whether the cap covers contractual interest. The court held that the cap should be applied to the total liability owed by each party to the other, separately, and not to the amount of both parties’ liability added together. Secondly, the court clarified that the cap should be applied before making adjustments for set-off. Thirdly, interest did not fall within the cap on the basis of an express term of the agreement stating that interest is the sole and substantial remedy for late payment (and is therefore separate). On the basis of its conclusions above, the court determined that total liability amounted to €4.2m, and not €5m as the High Court had previously established. Written by Marija Nonkovic, associate at Kemp IT Law LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Forming enforceable contracts—consideration

Forming enforceable contracts—considerationThis Practice Note examines the doctrine of consideration and the key role it plays in English law in determining whether a contract is enforceable.A promise will only be capable of being contractually enforced if it is either made in a deed or made in

Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?

Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?This Practice Note considers the first question to ask when faced with a prospective claim in negligence—whether or not a duty of care exists between the claimant and the defendant such that, if the defendant has breached that duty, liability may arise.For

Void contracts

Void contractsThis Practice Note summarises the circumstances in which a contract may be declared void and the consequences when that happens. It distinguishes between void, voidable and unenforceable contracts and considers when a contract may be void due to: common mistake, unilateral mistake as

What is a tort?

What is a tort?This Practice Note provides an introduction to tort law by addressing three questions:•what does the concept of being liable in tort mean? And how does tort relate to contract and criminal law•how has the law of tort developed?•what is the scope of tort, ie what interests does it
Forming enforceable contracts—consideration

Forming enforceable contracts—consideration

Forming enforceable contracts—considerationThis Practice Note examines the doctrine of consideration and the key role it plays in English law in determining whether a contract is enforceable.A promise will only be capable of being contractually enforced if it is either made in a deed or made in

Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?

Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?

Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?This Practice Note considers the first question to ask when faced with a prospective claim in negligence—whether or not a duty of care exists between the claimant and the defendant such that, if the defendant has breached that duty, liability may arise.For

Void contracts

Void contracts

Void contractsThis Practice Note summarises the circumstances in which a contract may be declared void and the consequences when that happens. It distinguishes between void, voidable and unenforceable contracts and considers when a contract may be void due to: common mistake, unilateral mistake as

What is a tort?

What is a tort?

What is a tort?This Practice Note provides an introduction to tort law by addressing three questions:•what does the concept of being liable in tort mean? And how does tort relate to contract and criminal law•how has the law of tort developed?•what is the scope of tort, ie what interests does it