i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

JUSTIFYING UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Rohan Havelock *

Notwithstanding its recognition and acceptance in private law, the notion of “unjust enrichment” has faced both academic and judicial criticism, scepticism and denial. Such treatment raises to the fore the fundamental but controversial question of the normative justification for this liability, by which the common law governs restitution in respect of defective transfers. This article evaluates the two primary accounts given of this normative justification: corrective justice, and so-called “property-based” accounts. After concluding that a version of the property-based account best coheres with the nature of a defective transfer, the implications of this account for the form and operation of the elements of unjust enrichment are examined. It is argued that a reorientated principle of “unintended disenrichment” would better align the liability with its most plausible normative justification.

* Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland and Barrister & Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. I am very grateful to Charles Rickett, Lionel Smith, Peter Watts QC and Peter Devonshire for their comments on a draft.
The following abbreviations are used in the footnotes:
Birks, Introduction: P Birks, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (Clarendon, Oxford, 1985);
Birks, UE: P Birks, Unjust Enrichment, 2nd edn (OUP, Oxford, 2005);
Burrows: A Burrows, The Law of Restitution, 3rd edn (OUP, Oxford, 2011);
Grantham & Rickett: R Grantham and C Rickett, Enrichment and Restitution in New Zealand (Hart, Oxford, 1999);
Jaffey: P Jaffey, Private Law and Property Claims (Hart, Oxford, 2007);
Klimchuk (2004): D Klimchuk, “Unjust Enrichment and Corrective Justice”, ch.6 of J Neyers et al (eds), Understanding Unjust Enrichment (Hart, Oxford, 2004);
Klimchuk, “Normative”: D Klimchuk, “The Normative Foundations of Unjust Enrichment”, ch.3 of Philosophical Foundations;
Lodder: AVM Lodder, Enrichment in the Law of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution (Hart, Oxford, 2012);
McFarlane (2012): B McFarlane, “Unjust Enrichment, Rights and Value”, in D Nolan and A Robertson (eds), Rights and Private Law (Hart, Oxford, 2012) 581;
Philosophical Foundations: R Chambers et al (eds), Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Unjust Enrichment (OUP, Oxford, 2009);
Rickett & Grantham: C Rickett and R Grantham (eds), Structure and Justification in Private Law (Hart, Oxford, 2008);
Virgo: G Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution, 3rd edn (OUP, Oxford, 2015);
Watts: P Watts, “‘Unjust Enrichment’—the Potion that Induces Well-meaning Sloppiness of Thought” [2016] CLP 289;
Webb: C Webb, Reasons and Restitution: A Theory of Unjust Enrichment (OUP, Oxford, 2016);
Weinrib, Corrective Justice: E Weinrib, Corrective Justice (OUP, Oxford, 2012);
Weinrib, Correctively: E Weinrib, “Correctively Unjust Enrichment”, ch.2 of R Chambers et al (eds), Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Unjust Enrichment (OUP, Oxford, 2009);
Weinrib, Idea: E Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law, revised edn (OUP, Oxford, 2012);
Weinrib, Normative Structure: E Weinrib, “The Normative Structure of Unjust Enrichment”, ch.3 of Rickett & Grantham.

JUSTIFYING UNJUST ENRICHMENT

567

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.