Unjustified Enrichment

Derived from Roman Law
- The concept of unjustified enrichment has its roots in Roman law.
Obsolescence
- Largely considered obsolete for many years.
Resurgence in the 1990s
- Notable cases include:
  - Virdee v Stewart
  - Shilliday v Smith
  - Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd
- The principles align closely with the law of restitution in England.

The law of unjust enrichment is said to be rooted in principles of equity.
Each case is determined based on its individual merits.
Three Nominate Remedies
1. Repetition
2. Restitution
3. Recompense
- These remedies can be viewed as extrapolations of the same principle applied in different scenarios.
Residual Nature of Remedies
- Remedies in unjustified enrichment are seen as a 'last resort'.
- Claim is not permitted if an alternative remedy exists within another area of law.
- Relevant cases:
  - Courtney’s Executors v Campbell
  - Pert v McCaffrey

Repetition (Condictio)
- The essence of repetition involves recovering money paid for a purpose that ultimately failed.
- Roman law recognized various condictiones, many of which are incorporated into Scots law.

A substantive right that permits an individual to recover excess payments made towards a common liability when jointly liable with others.
- Example:
  - If A and B are jointly liable for £1,000 and A pays the full amount, A can claim B’s £500 share.
- Case Reference:
  - Reid v Lord Ruthven (1917) - Entitled compensation for paying off another's debt even if done voluntarily.

Condictio indebiti
- Action for recovering money paid which was not owed.
- Case Reference:
  - Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Lothian Regional Council
Condictio Causa Data Causa Non Secuta
- Recovery of money paid when the anticipated consideration did not result.
- Case Reference:
  - Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Co (1923)
Condictio ob turpem vel injustam causam
- Recovery of money paid for unlawful or immoral purposes.
- Case References:
  - Subsea Offshore Ltd v Broom (2002)
  - Balfour Beatty Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd (2006)
Condictio sine causa
- Recovery of money paid with no legal grounds for retention.
- Case References:
  - BOC v SSEB (1959)
  - Woolwich Building Society v Inland Revenue (1993)

Four defences available to a claim of unjust enrichment:
1. Change of Position
2. Personal Bar
3. Compromise Agreements
4. Payment of Another’s Debt

If the defender believed they were entitled to the money and changed their position accordingly, recovery may not be possible if inequitable.
- Case Reference:
  - Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson & Co Ltd (1901)

If the pursuer leads the defender to reasonably believe a state of facts exists, and the defender acts on this belief to their detriment, the pursuer cannot assert the opposite facts later.
- Case Reference:
  - Dixon v Monkland Canal Co (1831)

If liabilities between parties are uncertain, a party cannot recover payments made due to a compromise agreement.
- Example:
  - If A pays B to settle potential claims without owing as much.
- Case Reference:
  - Manclark v Thomson’s Trustees (1958)

If A pays a debt to B that they believe is owed to C, and B was indeed owed, A cannot claim back amounts paid.

An action for restitution applies when delivered goods are property rather than money.

The necessity of transferring a real right in property.
- Applies to both heritable and moveable property.
- Theoretically possible but rare in practice.

By Nature: Industrial crops can be removed.
By Accession:
- Concept of aedes cedit solo, solo cedit: that which is attached to the land is considered part of it.
- Case Reference:
  - Scottish Discount Co. v. Blin (1986) S.L.T. 123
Heritable defined as land and attachments; moveable as anything not heritable.

An action to recover stolen property that legally belongs to the pursuer classified under property law rather than law of obligations.

Tom and Sarah's Equipment:
- Scenario: Tom lends Sarah his camera. Sarah refuses to return it. Since this entails physical property, Tom’s legal remedy is a restitution action to reclaim his equipment.
Ownership Example (Potatoes):
- A sells potatoes to B. B sells them to C. The contract is found illegal.
- B retains potatoes without a legal basis, and thus is unjustly enriched, leading to recompense owed to A, possibly differing from original sale price.
- This scenario links to condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.
Servitude Example:
- Mistakenly granted servitude by Anna to Ben; Anna can seek restitution to regain her right.
Lease Example:
- Tom grants a lease erroneously based on a false premise of payment. Tom may seek restitution to terminate the lease and take back the right.

CIN Properties Ltd v Dollar Land Cumbernauld Ltd (1992):
- Head tenants under a lengthy lease faced nonpayment issues. Subsequent irritancy proceedings reached the House of Lords and were enforced.
Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd (1998):
- Established essential criteria for unjust enrichment concerning leases:
  1. The defenders were enriched at the pursuers' expense.
  2. No legal justification for the enrichment.
  3. It was equitable to compel the defenders to redress the enrichment.
- Related Case:
  - Blythswood Investments (Scotland) Ltd (1995)

Fraudulent Standard Security:
- A signs a deed granting B a security interest in A’s house. The deed is void due to fraud.
- B’s enrichment creates an obligation to return the property rights to A, regulating restitution due to sine causa.

If A creates a proper liferent for B over property but the deed is void (e.g., fraud induced), B must relinquish the liferent to restore A’s full ownership rights.