Unjust enrichment / James Edelman and Elise Bant.

Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2016.

2nd edition

87143

Unjust enrichment -- Englishspeaking countries.

Restitution -- Englishspeaking countries.

Part I: The action for unjust enrichment

1. Introduction

2. The nature of an action based on unjust enrichment

3. The remedy of restitution

Part II: Elements of unjust enrichment

4. The enrichment enquiry

5. At the expense of the plaintiff

6. The unjust enquiry

7. Negating juristic reasons

Part III: The unjust factors

8. Mistake

9. Duress or illegitimate pressure

10. Undue influence

11. Failure of consideration

12. No intention to benefit the defendant

13. Policy-based reasons for restitution

Part IV: Defences

14. Change of position

15. Other defences.

In Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560, the High Court reiterated that unjust enrichment was not a definitive legal principle [73] and that it does not found or reflect any "all-embracing theory of restitutionary rights and remedies." [74]. However, a little over two years later, the Full Court of the Federal Court in Great Investments Ltd v Warner [2016] FCAFC 85, has adopted a slightly different view. In that latter case the Full Court identified that notions of unjust enrichment underpinned personal and proprietary claims in equity for the return of property which has been improperly transferred. It is also clear that the Court of Appeal in New South Wales regularly identifies the principle of unjust enrichment as constituting a valid and separate taxonomical area of law pursuant to which causes of actions exist and from which a variety of restitutionary remedies are derived. That is occasionally done without even a passing acknowledgement to the High Court authorities which might suggest to the contrary. And so it is that, in Australia, the law of unjust enrichment is far from dead. If anything it is slowly but surely reviving as the jurisprudential influence of Gummow J wanes. That being so it is timely that the second edition of "Unjust Enrichment" has recently been released by Hart Publishing. The work involves a major re-writing of the first edition with the first half of the book completely changed. That initial part discusses the issue of the need for taxonomical revision of legal rules and actions and identifies the weaknesses in the existing legal taxonomy. The arguments are perspicacious and the logic rigorous. In short, the arguments in favour of a revised taxonomy are only just short of compelling. This initial part of the work also identifies the discordance which arises when the expressions "restitution" and "unjust enrichment" are used synonymously. This important distinction is often overlooked and it has given rise to much confusion in this area. The remainder of the work deals with the modern learning of the elements of the concept of "unjust enrichment at the expense of another" and the defences to such claims. Queensland Law Reporter - 29 July 2016 - [2016] 29 QLR 12 This is an excellent work in that area of the law which the legendary legal historian Professor David Ibbetson recently described as the only revolution in legal thinking in the history of the common law. Unfortunately, all copies of the work which were recently released in Australia quickly sold out and in order to obtain a copy one must go to the Hart Publishing website and order from the United Kingdom or wait for the formal release of the work in Australia which will occur within a month. - Queensland Law Reporter.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

9781841133188

lix, 415 pages ; 25 cm