Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: November 2010

3 - The Australian law of restitution: has the High Court lost its way?

Summary

Introduction

When I first taught the BCL restitution course in Oxford in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and when I first came to Australia in 1994, we looked across with admiration, and not a little envy, at the wonderful judgments on the law of restitution of the High Court of Australia. We were enthralled by the decisions and reasoning in cases such as: Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul, rejecting the implied contract theory and awarding a quantum meruit for work done under an unenforceable contract; David Securities Property Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia allowing restitution for mistake of law and recognizing the change of position defence; and Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd rejecting a passing on defence to a claim for restitution of mistakenly overpaid stamp duty. At that time Australia led the way in its development and application of a principled law of restitution and England lagged woefully behind.

How times have changed. The English law of restitution over the last fifteen years has seen the most remarkable transformation. The reasoning of the courts at all levels has been characterized by rigorous and enlightened analysis. The growth has been accelerated by two dramatic bursts of litigation, factually so fortunate for the law of restitution: the swaps litigation in the mid-1990s; and more recently, and ongoing, the so-called Hoechst litigation on the consequences of the striking down of UK advanced corporation tax legislation by the European Court of Justice.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Exploring Private Law
  • Online ISBN: 9780511779213
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779213
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×
Edelman, J and Bant, E, Unjust Enrichment in Australia (Oxford University Press, Melbourne 2006)
Mason, K, Carter, JW and Tolhurst, GJ, Mason and Carter's Restitution Law in Australia (2nd edn LexisNexis, Sydney 2008)
Nicholls, Lord, ‘Knowing Receipt: The Need for a New Landmark’ in Cornish, WR and others (eds), Restitution: Past Present and Future: Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998) 231
Walker, Lord, ‘Dishonesty and Unconscionable Conduct in Commercial Life: Some Reflections on Accessory Liability and Knowing Receipt’ (2005) 27 Syd LR187
Birks, P, ‘Failure of Consideration and Its Place on the Map’ (2002) 2 OUCLJ1
Beatson, J and Virgo, G, ‘Contract, Unjust Enrichment and Unconscionability’ (2002) 118 LQR352
Birks, P, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (revd edn Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989) 19
Birks, P in ‘Receipt’ in Birks, P and Pretto, A (eds), Breach of Trust (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2002) 213
Ridge, P and Dietrich, J, ‘The Receipt of What? Questions Concerning Third Party Recipient Liability in Equity and Unjust Enrichment’ (2007) 31 MULR47
Ridge, P and Dietrich, J, ‘Equitable Third Party Liability’ (2008) 124 LQR26
Harding, M, ‘Barnes v Addy Claims and the Indefeasibility of Torrens Title’ (2007) 31 MULR343
Bryan, M, ‘Recipient Liability under the Torrens System: Some Category Errors’ in Rickett, C and Grantham, R (eds), Structure and Justification in Private Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2008) 339–59
Bryan, M, ‘The Liability of the Recipient: Restitution at Common Law or Wrongdoing in Equity’ in Degeling, S and Edelman, J (eds), Equity in Commercial Law (Lawbook Co, Sydney 2005) 327–47
Edelman, J, ‘Unjust Enrichment and Contract’ [2008] LMCLQ444
Getzler, JS, ‘Quantum Meruit, Estoppel and Primacy of Contract’ (2009) 125 LQR196, 204–9
Birks, P, Unjust Enrichment (2nd edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005) 89–93
Edelman, J, ‘Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd’ (case note) [2008] LMCLQ444, 448–9