It is now well established that the law of unjust enrichment forms an important and distinctive part of the English law of obligations. Restitutionary awards for unjust enrichment and for wrongdoing are clearly recognised for what they are. But prior to the last decade of the twentieth century the very existence of a separate law of unjust enrichment was controversial, its scope and content matters of dispute. In this collection of essays, a group of leading scholars reappraise some of the landmark cases in the area. Their investigations shed new light on some classic decisions, and persuasively invite readers to think again about some well-known authorities.
Charles Mitchell is Professor of Law at UCL. His recent publications include Underhill & Hayton's Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees (19th edn, 2015) (with David Hayton and Paul Matthews) and Goff and Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment (8th edn, 2010) (with Paul Mitchell and Stephen Watterson). Paul Mitchell is Professor of Law at UCL. His recent publications include A History of Tort Law 1900-1950 (2015) and Goff and Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment (8th edn, 2010) (with Charles Mitchell and Stephen Watterson). Together they have also co-edited Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract, Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort and Landmark Cases in Equity (all from Hart Publishing).
1. Lamplugh v Brathwaite (1615) DAVID IBBETSON 2. Moses v Macferlan (1760) WARREN SWAIN 3. Taylor v Plumer (1815) LIONEL SMITH 4. Planche v Colburn (1831) CHARLES MITCHELL AND CHARLOTTE MITCHELL 5.Marsh v Keating (1834) JAMES EDELMAN 6. Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) MICHAEL LOBBAN 7. Phillips v Homfray (1883) WILLIAM SWADLING 8. Allcard v Skinner (1887) CHARLOTTE SMITH 9. Sinclair v Brougham (1914) EOIN O'DELL 10. Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd (1942) PAUL MITCHELL 11. Re Diplock (1948) TIM AKKOUH AND SARAH WORTHINGTON 12. Solle v Butcher (1950) CATHARINE MACMILLAN