SECTION D. Case Study

case study

SECTION D: Part 1 CASE STUDY

ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Ale [1991] WSSC 3; (1 December 1991) SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN SAMOA

Supreme Court. Apia

Ryan CJ

December 1991

CONTRACT-Unjust enrichment-bona fide mistake.

R Drake for Plaintiff

T K Enari for Defendant

The facts in this case are not in dispute. The parties filed an agreed statement which reads as follows:

"1. ON or about the 27th January 1989 Linda Ale purchased a bank draft for AUD $800.00 from Plaintiff's Rockdale Branch, NSW, Australia.

2. THE said Linda Ale who resides in Australia, is the daughter of Ale Ulugia who is the defendant who resides in Samoa

3. THE beneficiary for the said bank draft is the said Ale Ulugia.

4. THAT in return for her AUD$800.00 the said Linda Ale received bank draft No. 2395 5663256/5 for WST$17,506.00 dated 27th January 1989.

5. THAT subsequently the said Ale Ulugia presented to the Bank of Western Samoa bank draft No. 2395 5663256/5 & received WST$17,506.00

6. THAT using the correct exch rate at the time of AUD$ = 1.8694 the bank draft should have been for WST$1,496.00 & not WST$17 506.00

7. THAT on a no of occasions the said Ale Ulugia was interviewed by various bank officers from the Bank of Western Samoa concerning the overpayment to him of $16,010.00 but advised to refer the matter to his daughter in Aus who had sent him the bank draft.

8. THAT the said Ale Ulugia has spent the money." Mrs Drake for the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment for the $16,010.00 as moneys had & received in that the sum was paid to the Defendant, under a bona fide mistake of fact. She refers to the decisions in KELLY v SOLARI (1841) 9 M & W 54, 58 and FIBROSA SPOLKA MCYJNA v FAIRBURN LAWSON COMBE BARBOUR LTD [1943] A.C. 32, 61.

Mr Enari for his part is firmly in the corner of Lord Summer in SINCLAIR v BROUGHAM [1914] A.C. 398 and Lord Justice Scrutton in HOLT v MARKAM [1923] 1 K.B. 504, 513.

In the United States there is no distinction based on the form or nature of the gain received. It is a pity that English law does not take a similarly realistic approach. For my part I am quite satisfied that the Courts in Western Samoa should not be bogged down by academic niceties which have little relevance to real life.

This is a clear case where in my view the presumptions mentioned by Goff & Jones fit in neatly w the undisputed facts. The Defendant has been unjustly enriched by the receipt of a benefit of $16,010 more than he should have been; he has been so enriched at the Bank's expense & the Bank's honest mistake, & finally it would be most unjust to allow him to retain the benefit.

The Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment in the sum of $16,010 tg w costs & disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

a. Who was unjustly enriched in this case?

= The defendant, Ale Ulugia

• was unjustly enriched by receiving WST$17,506 instead of WST$1,496.

b. "Bona-fide" means having no knowledge of something. So who did Ryan CJ referred to as the party making an "honest mistake?"

= The plaintiff, ANZ Banking Group Ltd

• made an honest (bona fide) mistake in overpaying the bank draft.

c. Identify all Officers of the Court mentioned in the case

= Mrs Drake (for the Plaintiff), T K Enari (for the Defendant), Chief Justice Ryan.

d. Did CJ Ryan allow Ale to retain the unjust enriched benefit? Explain

= No. CJ Ryan did not allow Ale Ulugia to retain the benefit.

• He ruled that it would be unjust to allow him to retain the benefit, as it was received due to the bank’s honest mistake.

e. Which party did CJ Ryan ruled in favour of?

= CJ Ryan ruled in favour of the plaintiff, ANZ Banking Group Ltd.

case citation + voicing : Fung Chen Pen v Peter Wulf [2008]WSSC 108 (18 December 2008)

 

1.   fung chen pen: plaintiff

• In every case plaintiff's name is first

2.   Wulf: Defendant

3.   V: against

4.   [2008]: year of case

5.   []: unreported case

(unreported- decision by court remains, has not been edited, decision that has been delivered)

6.   WSSC - western samoa supreme court

7.   08 - case no 8

8.   (18 Dec 2008) - decision delivered

 

() - round brackets = Reported case

 

WSDC = Western Samoa District court

WSSC = WS supreme court

WSCA = WS court of appeal

LTC = Land & Titles courta.  

(voicing → use last names)

voicing = Case of fung chen pen against wulf, unreported case of 2008, heard at western samoa supreme court, case number 8 and decision was delivered 18 dec 2008

[case citation] criminal matters: Police v Vitale Vitale [2002] WSDC 14 (10 july 2022)

(Always police who is complainant on behalf of victim)

(always police against accused)

 

= case of the police against vitale vitale, unreported case of 2002, heard at the western samoa district court, case number 14, and the decision was delivered on the 10 july 2022 

 

1.   Police - complainant

2.   Vitale vitale - accused

[case citation] “The accused Mr. Mose Konelio was charged by the Police for the murder of Ilai Sumeo. The incident occurred at the RSA Bar some 3 years ago whereby the two argued, they fought and Mose smashed 3 bottles (Taula Strong) striking the head of Ilai. He was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital. The case went into trial last month before Chief Justice Perese and the accused was found guilty on all charges. Mose was sentenced to life imprisonment by Perese CJ on Monday 07 October 2024. This is the 87th unreported criminal case heard so far in the Supreme Court of Samoa in this year 2024'“

(a) Write down the case citation of the above scenario

Police v Mose Konelio [2024] WSSC 87 (7 October 2024)

(b) Write down the correct voicing of the case citation:

ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Ulugia Ale [1991] WSSC 3; (1 December 1991)

The case of ANZ Banking Group Ltd against Ale, unreported case of 1991, heard at Western Samoa Supreme Court, case number 3, & decision was delivered 1 Dec 1991