‘Calls to make it easier for UK museums to consider returning cultural objects have been rebuffed by the Government.’
The Independent, 13th October 2022
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal concerning the law of limitation.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The key phrase in most but not all of the sections of the Limitation Act 1980 is the accrual of the “cause of action”. Time runs from the accrual of the cause of action.’
Hailsham Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal considered the application of counterfactual arguments to unjust enrichment claims based upon the principle in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993] AC 70. The decision affirms the primacy of the principle of lawful authority and limits the scope for public authorities to rely upon hypothetical decision making to curtail restitution. Written by James Saunders, barrister at New Square Chambers.’
New Square Chambers, 21st February 2020
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) v Exotix Partners LLP [2019] EWHC 2380 (Ch) is another reminder of the flexibility of contractual construction as an alternative to rectification for subjective mistakes.’
Littleton Chambers, 1st October 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Neanderthal skulls and the remains of an extinct sloth named after Charles Darwin are among the items requested for repatriation from British institutions, as documents reveal museums are facing calls to return some of their most treasured items to their places of origin.’
The Guardian, 18th February 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A claimant that recovered just 2% of the sum it originally claimed at trial was not the successful party, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 16th November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘If an individual has in years past paid him or herself for mental health aftercare services, which should have been paid for by public bodies, does that person have a valid restitution claim to be refunded the monies spent? The Court of Appeal in Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1998 has upheld the decision of Newey J at first instance, that a claimant can bring a private law action against public authorities under Part 7 of the CPR, when it is alleged that:
· the public authority was responsible for providing mental health aftercare services to the claimant pursuant to section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983;
· aftercare services were received by the claimant; and
· those services were paid for by the claimant themselves.
Such a claim would be brought in restitution, on the basis that the payments made by the claimant served to relieve the public authority of liabilities which they ought to have been bearing under section 117.’
Community Care Blog, 18th December 2017
Source: communitycare11kbw.com
Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] UKSC 29
‘The claimants were “closed-ended” investment funds constituted as limited companies. Between 1992 and 2002 they received supplies of services from investment managers rendered pursuant to agreements which provided for the managers to be remunerated by the payment of fees plus VAT “if applicable”. Under the legislation then in force such services did not qualify for exemption and the managers charged VAT at the standard rate. The managers made periodic VAT returns which accounted for the VAT charged as output tax, reclaimed input tax and paid the revenue the net difference. Following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union it transpired that the supplies of the investment management services should have been exempt from VAT. Accordingly, the managers made claims to the revenue under section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for repayment of sums accounted for and paid by them in error. The revenue met those claims but, in accordance with the statutory provisions, limited repayments to the net amounts which the managers had paid and did not include any amounts relating to periods which were time-barred. The managers forwarded the reimbursements to the claimants as required under section 80 but since they were insufficient to meet the full amount of VAT which had been mistakenly paid by them the claimants brought proceedings against the revenue on grounds of unjust enrichment and breach of European Union law. The judge found that the revenue had been enriched by the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants to the managers; that the claimants had no cause of action at common law because the statutory scheme protected the revenue from any liability to refund VAT except as provided for under section 80 of the 1994 Act, but that, since, within the limitation period, European Union law required that exclusion to be disapplied, the claimants were entitled to repayment of the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants within that period. The claim in relation to the time-barred periods was therefore dismissed. On appeal by both parties the Court of Appeal concluded that the statutory scheme did not exclude a common law claim but that, since the revenue had only received payment of output tax net of input tax from the managers, it had not been unjustly enriched over the periods in which a refund had been paid to the managers, although a similar repayment was payable to cover the time-barred periods.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A group of investment trust companies (ITCs) cannot make out an ‘unjust enrichment’ claim against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in order to recover VAT paid to their investment managers (managers) due to a mistake of law, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In a recent case, the English Commercial Court has determined that a claim in restitution based on unjust enrichment was governed by English law pursuant to EU Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II) and not the law of Geneva.’
Commercial Disputes Blog, 19th February 2016
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus plc: [2015] UKSC 66; [2015] WLR (D) 438
‘Where a person was given a property by her parents bought with money from the sale of the family home, made possible by a bank having agreed to release its charges over the family home (securing the parents’ borrowing) to allow it to be sold, in return for receiving a lump sum payment out of the proceeds of sale to reduce the borrowing and a fresh charge over the new property to secure the remaining indebtedness, but— because the person had not been told of the fresh charge and it had been defectively executed— the new charge was void, the bank had an equitable interest in the new property to the extent of the value of the purported charge, which it could enforce by means of subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien.’
WLR Daily 4th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Polevent Ltd and others: [2015] EWHC 1968 (Comm); [2015] WLR (D) 304
‘The law governing a claim in restitution was the law of the country in which the unjust enrichment took place pursuant to article 10(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007.’
WLR Daily, 10th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In accordance with a taxpayer’s rights under European Union law, sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax act 1994 would be disapplied to enable the taxpayer to recover more than simple interest by seeking to recover in restitution the time value of sums which they wrongly paid.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where the statutory requirements for the imposition of a penalty under the Competition Act 1998 had been complied with, the statutory appeal process provided for by the Act was the exclusive route by which such penalty so imposed could be challenged. A party who failed to appeal against a penalty remained bound by it, irrespective of the outcome of any appeals brought by other parties against whom penalties had been imposed under the same decision.’
WLR Daily, 19th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Those are not my words but the view expressed on 2 April by Lord Sumption on the effective over-compensation which can result under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (“the FAA”). The other Supreme Court Justices agreed with him. He expressed the view that, “What is clear is that sections 3 and 4 [of the FAA] mark a departure from the ordinary principles of assessment in English law, which can fairly be described as anomalous”. This was in a Supreme Court case which had to decide whether in a foreign accident case to apply German principles of assessment of damages (effectively full compensation) or English law in the form of the FAA: Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (formerly known as Victoria) [2014] UKSC 22.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th April 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Until recently it was unclear how long a party who lost in an adjudication, and had to pay money to the winning party, had to bring a subsequent claim for recovery of those monies. The position has recently been resolved by the Court of Appeal in the case of Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1541 but the discussion had started earlier with the case of Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd [2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th January 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Role of Equity in Mistaken Transactions – Speech by the Chancellor of the High Court. ACTAPS lecture 2013, delivered 20th November 2013.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 21st November 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1415; [2013] WLR (D) 437
“In determining whether a party had a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment, the court ought to consider the following four questions: (i) has the defendant benefited or been enriched?; (ii) was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?; (iii) was the enrichment unjust?; and (iv) was there any specific defence available to the defendant. The issue of whether any benefit was incidental and therefore amounted to a defence to an unjust enrichment claim was to be determined by reference to consideration of those four questions, rather than a formulation of a general exception based on characterisation of the nature of the benefit alone.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWHC 3249 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 411
“It was within the scope of conforming interpretation to construe section 790 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as providing for the grant of a tax credit for foreign dividends to the extent necessary to secure compliance with European Union (‘EU’) law.”
WLR Daily, 24th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024