|
Money Had And Received
An action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use is the name for a common law claim derived from the form of action known as '' indebitatus assumpsit''. The action enabled one person to recover money which has been received by another: for example, where a plaintiff paid money to the defendant while labouring under a mistake of fact or where there was a total failure of consideration. The action was a personal action only available in respect of money, rather than other benefits. Where the benefit received by the defendant was services or goods, the appropriate action was a ''quantum meruit'' or a '' quantum valebant'', respectively. The action for money had and received formed a part of the law of quasi-contract. Although the forms of action were abolished in the mid-19th century, reference continues to be made to the action in modern pleading.Cf. Graham Virgo, ''The Principles of the Law of Restitution'' (3rd ed, 2015). The terminology of "quasi-contract" has been rep ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on precedent—judicial rulings made in previous similar cases. The presiding judge determines which precedents to apply in deciding each new case. Common law is deeply rooted in Precedent, ''stare decisis'' ("to stand by things decided"), where courts follow precedents established by previous decisions. When a similar case has been resolved, courts typically align their reasoning with the precedent set in that decision. However, in a "case of first impression" with no precedent or clear legislative guidance, judges are empowered to resolve the issue and establish new precedent. The common law, so named because it was common to all the king's courts across England, originated in the practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries fo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sinclair V Brougham
''Sinclair v Brougham'' 914AC 398 is an English trusts law case, concerning the right of depositors to recover sums which were deposited (or loaned) to a building society under contracts of deposit which were beyond the powers of (''ultra vires'') the building society. Facts The Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Society was formed under the Benefit Building Societies Act 1836, but was never registered under the Building Societies Act 1874. Under rule 35 of the society’s constitution it was allowed to borrow money. Rule 97 said that losses should be shared among the two classes of shareholders in different proportions. From the start it developed a banking business, the Birkbeck Bank, but this was wound up in 1911. The four groups of creditors were (1) A shareholders who would be repaid on maturity, (2) B shareholders who had permanent shares (3) trade creditors and (4) depositors. The trade creditors and the A shareholders had their claims settled by an agreement. The liquidator bro ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Restitution
Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages (the law of compensation), restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution. This principle derives from late Roman law, as stated in the Latin maxim attributed to Sextus Pomponius, ''Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimentum et injuria fieri locupletiorem'' ("By natural law it is just that no one should be enriched by another's loss or injury"). In civil law systems, it is also referred to as enrichment without cause or unjustified enrichment. In pre-modern English common law, restitutionary claims were often brought in an action for '' assumpsit'' and later in a claim for money had and received. The seminal case giving ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Justice
The High Court of Justice in London, known properly as His Majesty's High Court of Justice in England, together with the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, are the Courts of England and Wales, Senior Courts of England and Wales. Its name is abbreviated as EWHC (England and Wales High Court) for legal citation purposes. The High Court deals at Court of first instance, first instance with all high-value and high-importance Civil law (common law), civil law (non-Criminal law, criminal) cases; it also has a supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and tribunals, with a few statutory exceptions, though there are debates as to whether these exceptions are effective. The High Court consists of three divisions: the King's Bench Division, the #Chancery Division, Chancery Division and the #Family Division, Family Division. Their jurisdictions overlap in some cases, and cases started in one division may be transferred by court order to a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Philip Collins Ltd V Davis
''Philip Collins Ltd v Davis'' 0003 All ER 808 is an English unjust enrichment case, an example of a restitution claim and the change of position defence. Facts Phil Collins released ''Serious Hits… Live!'' with 15 tracks in 1990. Rahmlee Davis and Louis Satterfield contributed performances on five tracks and received album royalties via Collins' publishing company ''Philip Collins Ltd''. In 1997, Collins said they had been mistakenly overpaid by a factor of three. They had been paid as if they had performed on all fifteen tracks, but they had only performed on five. To reverse this alleged unjust enrichment, Collins proposed to set off the overpaid royalties on future royalties. Davis and Satterfield argued back they were entitled to royalties without the pro rata reduction, and raised both estoppel and change of position defences. Judgment Jonathan Parker J held Collins had overpaid Davis and Satterfield and he was entitled to set future royalties off against half of the sum ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale V Islington LBC
is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts. The decision was arguably the most significant of all of the local authorities swaps litigation cases. Facts The Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale sued Islington LBC for the return of £1,145,525, which included compound interest, as money that it had paid under an interest rate swap agreement with the council. Interest rate swap agreements had been declared by the House of Lords, a few years earlier in ''Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC'', to be ''ultra vires'' and void because they exceeded councils' borrowing powers under the Local Government Act 1972. The council accepted that it should repay the money it had received un ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Australia
The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation. The High Court was established following the passage of the ''Judiciary Act 1903'' (Cth). Its authority derives from chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it (and other courts the Parliament creates) with the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Its internal processes are governed by the ''High Court of Australia Act 1979'' (Cth). The court consists of seven justices, including a chief justice, currently Stephen Gageler. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the governor-general on the formal advice of the attorney-general following the approval of the prime minister and Cabinet. They are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire earlier. Typically, the court operates by receiving applicati ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Baltic Shipping Company V Dillon
''Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon'', the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment. Facts A widow, Mrs Joan Dillon, bought a cruise from a charterer's travel brochure on the cruise ship (named after the Russian poet, Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov). She paid a deposit and on 6 December 1985 received a booking form that said the ticket would be issued subject to conditions. On 24 January 1986 she received the ticket, which limited liability for personal injury. The ship sank. Mrs Dillon was injured and lost some valuables. She was sent a loss form without reference to personal injuries. The company offered her an ''ex gratia'' sum to settle if she signed a release form. She accepted and signed. In 1987 the insurance company and Mrs Dillon sued to recover damages for personal injury and other losses. Judgment Trial court Carruthers J award ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lipkin Gorman V Karpnale Ltd
is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision. Although the case is most famous for the transformative judgment handed down by the House of Lords in relation to restitution and unjust enrichment, the decision of the Court of Appeal is also an important banking law decision in its own right, setting out key principles relating to the duty of care owed by bankers to their customers. There was no appeal against that part of the decision to the House of Lords. Facts Norman Barry Cass was a partner in a solicitors' firm called Lipkin Gorman. He was an authorised signatory at the firm’s Lloyds B ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court Of Appeal Of England And Wales
The Court of Appeal (formally "His Majesty's Court of Appeal in England", commonly cited as "CA", "EWCA" or "CoA") is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal was created in 1875, and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal. The court has two divisions, Criminal and Civil, led by the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls respectively. Criminal appeals are heard in the Criminal Division, and civil appeals in the Civil Division. The Criminal Division hears appeals from the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals from the County Court, High Court of Justice and Family Court. Permission to appeal is normally required from either the lower court or the Court of Appeal itself; and with permission, further appeal may lie to the Supreme Court. Its decisions are binding on all courts, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jackson V Horizon Holidays Ltd
''Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd'' 9751 WLR 1468 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of Privity. The case would now be partly resolved by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 section 1(1)(b), allowing a third party to claim independently. Some of the reasoning of Lord Denning MR was disapproved in ''Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd'',9801 WLR 277 which held that the decision is limited to a confined category of cases involving consumers. Facts Mr Jackson got a holiday through Horizon Holidays Ltd to the Brown Beach Hotel, Hendala Point, in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) for himself and his family. He paid £1200. When they arrived, the facilities were substandard, and not at all as promised. As Lord Denning MR recounted, The judge followed ''Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd'' and awarded damages of £1100 for distress. The defendant appealed against the damages awarded to Mr Jackson's wife and children, who were not parties to th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Functions Of The House Of Lords
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for Impeachment in the United Kingdom, impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England. Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the King-in-Parliament. In Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (informally referred to as Law Lords). They were then appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the same manner as other judges. During the 20th and early 21st century, the judicial functions were gradually removed. Its final trial of a peer was in 1935, and the use of special courts for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
