Some interesting issues have been raised by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v. Apotex Europe Ltd and others .1 The most significant appears to be this: in the course of delivering his judgment, Jacob LJ (with whom the rest of the Court of Appeal concurred), expressed the view that “restitution remains based on restoring property or the fruits of property”.2 This echoes the “property-centric” view most strongly enunciated by Professor Stoljar.3 But not everyone will agree that Stoljar’s view is representative of contemporary analysis of the various causes of action which might give rise to the remedy of restitution.