Lecture Notes on Unjustified Enrichment: General Enrichment Principle (4)

General Principle of Unjustified Enrichment

  • Narrow Version:

    • Definition: A person is unjustly enriched at another’s expense if they obtain a benefit from the other’s actions or expenditures without a legal reason to keep it.
    • Case Reference: Shilliday v Smith (1998) SC 725, 727, per Lord Rodger.

  • Wide Version:

    • Definition: The event leading to a remedy is the enrichment itself. The remedy applies when the enrichment has no legal foundation to justify the retention of the benefit.
    • Case Reference: Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd (1998) SC (HL) 90, at 98, per Lord Hope.

Challenges in Definition

  • Defining ‘without legal ground’ can be complex and variable.
  • Suggested Solution: German law suggests categorizing unjustified enrichment based on how the defender is enriched, leading to multiple interpretations of the general principle.

Types of 'Other' Cases

  • Focus of the lecture: Examining cases categorized as:
    1. Imposition
    2. Discharge of a third party’s obligation
    3. Interference
    4. Deliberate conferral (condictio) cases.

Imposition

  • Origin: Based in Roman law.

    • Example: “If someone builds a house on another’s land using their own materials, the house belongs to the landowner.”
    • Legal Defense against Ownership Claim (Justinian): If the builder was in good faith, he could defend against claims, otherwise, he’s at fault if aware of the land’s ownership.

  • Recognition in Scots Law:

    • Beattie v Lord Napier (1831): Building on another’s ground inadvertently, if the other’s conduct contributes to the mistake, requires compensation to be taught.

Good Faith Considerations

  • Stair’s View: Even those acting in bad faith could claim compensation, which has been later rejected (Buchanan v Stewart (1874)).
  • Case Example: M’Intyres v Orde (1881): Sisters sought compensation for a house built by their brother who thought he owned the land.
  • Beattie v Lord Napier (1831): Builder on T’s land was ejected without claim against the new owner D.
  • Anderson v Anderson (1869): Recovery allowed even when multiple lessees existed due to mistaken belief of sole ownership.

Complexities in Imposition

  • Issues arise when P builds partially on D’s land or if D does not want the building. Example: Trustees, Brian Lackey Trust v Annandale (2004).

Interference Cases

  • Examples:

    1. D takes P’s money.
    2. D acquires P’s property by changing it into a new form (specification).
    3. D sells P’s property to a third party.

  • Case References:

    • Oliver and Boyd v Marr Typefounding Co Ltd (1901): P’s metal type was melted down by D, who claimed value.
    • Harper Collins Publishers Ltd v Young (2007): D sold books belonging to P through eBay without proof of theft, P successfully claimed profits.
    • Secretary of State for Defence v Johnstone (1997): D occupied P’s property after lease ending, required to pay back market rent.

Fulfilment of Another’s Obligation

  • Hypothetical Example:
    • Bob owes £100 in rent. Jim pays it, thus enriching Bob. Jim can claim this back from Bob for unjustified enrichment.
    • Case Reference: Wylie’s Executrix v McJannet (1901).

Purpose of Subdivision in Unjustified Enrichment

  • Makes 'without legal ground' clearer.
  • Aids in identifying correct claims.
  • Allows for understanding that different claims require different considerations i.e. good faith is more crucial in imposition claims than in condictio claims.

Claims Process Framework

  1. Assess if P intentionally enriched D.
  2. If yes, potentially a condictio claim; if P’s aim failed, the enrichment is recoverable.
  3. If unintentional enrichment, assess through imposition, interference, or obligation discharge traits.