English law textbook on restitution and unjust enrichment
Goff & Jones in its ninth edition
Goff and Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment (formerly Goff and Jones on the Law of Restitution, usually simply abbreviated to Goff & Jones) is the leading authoritative English lawtextbook on restitution and unjust enrichment. First written by Robert Goff and Gareth Jones, it is presently in its tenth edition. It is published by Sweet & Maxwell[1] and forms part of the Common Law Library.
As a textbook it is somewhat remarkable in that although the first edition was published in 1966, it was not until 1991 (25 years later) that the House of Lords formally recognised unjust enrichment as a separate branch of jurisprudence.[2] It is notable that a number of the key decisions in the field have been handed down by Lord Goff, and often reflect the analysis which has previously expressed academically in Goff & Jones. For example, Goff's judgment in Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677 was described as "the Donoghue v Stevenson of restitution for mistake",[3] but largely reflected the same rationalisation of the law in this area which he had supported in Goff & Jones.
It has been said "[i]t is no exaggeration to say that the law of unjust enrichment would not exist, certainly not as we know it, if it was not for Goff & Jones."[4]Lord Rodger said that "Goff and Jones are the Romulus and Remus of the English Law of Restitution ... Out of a few weak and scattered settlements they founded a powerful city whose hegemony now extends far and wide."[5]
In 1952, Goff was appointed to a Common University Fund lectureship in law, to take effect in 1953.[6] In this capacity, he was required to give a series of lectures on any area of interest to him.[7] When exploring texts for inspiration, he chanced upon "quasi-contracts", a concept traceable to Roman law, but which was at that point unrecognised in English law.[7] Together with Ronnie Maudsley, then the law Tutor at Brasenose College, Oxford, he set up a series of seminars[7] in Restitution, also described as "Unjustifiable Enrichment" and "Quasi Contract".[6] On the basis of these lectures, Goff began work on the book that would later become Goff and Jones on the Law of Restitution (today published as Goff and Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment).[6][8] In 1959, as a junior barrister with a growing practice, Goff realised that if his book was to be completed, he would need a collaborator.[6]A. W. B. Simpson introduced him to Gareth Jones (then fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, and later Downing Professor of the Laws of England), with whom he would eventually publish the book.[9] Goff would later describe Jones as "the ideal co-author" and "beyond doubt, one of the finest teachers in the common law world".[9]
The book publication took much longer than either Goff or Jones anticipated.[6] The manuscript was submitted in late 1964.[6] The page proofs, which arrived in 1965, had so many mistakes and required so many alterations that the publishers, Sweet & Maxwell, made the authors pay for a second set of proofs.[6] As a result, Goff and Jones made practically no money from the first edition of the book, and Goff complained that Sweet & Maxwell "appeared to understand nothing about writing pioneering books".[6] The book was finally published in 1966.[6]
Upon its release, the book was quickly recognised as a significant work, and was largely favourably reviewed. Lord Denning reflected positively on it, calling it "a creative work" and comparing it to Sir Frederick Pollock's treatise on torts and the seminal textbook Anson's Law of Contract.[10]Edmund Davies, then a judge of the High Court of Justice, described it as "admirable". The book's propositions, however, caused some confusion in academic circles. Not knowing where it fitted, a university library classified it as Criminal Law, and a library of one of the Inns of Court refused to take the book in at all.[6] The book's propositions were also not unanimously welcomed. For example, they were resisted by Lord Diplock, who as late as in 1977 continued to declare judicially that "there is no general doctrine of unjust enrichment recognised in English law".[11]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Beatson, Sir Jack (23 October 2019). "Robert Goff"(PDF). Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the British Academy. 18. The British Academy: 241–273.
1 2 3 Tomlinson, Stephen (2018). The Inner Temple Yearbook 2017-2018. United Kingdom: The Honourable Society of The Inner Temple. pp.34–36.
↑ Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff, Baron, 1926-2016. (2016). The law of unjust enrichment. Jones, Gareth H., Mitchell, Charles (Charles Christopher James), Mitchell, Paul, 1972-, Watterson, Stephen, 1975- (Ninthed.). London. ISBN978-0-414-05523-0. OCLC944462849.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
1 2 Restitution: past, present, and future: essays in honour of Gareth Jones. Jones, Gareth H., Cornish, W. R. (William Rodolph), 1937-. Oxford: Hart Pub. 1998. ISBN1-901362-42-6. OCLC40798537.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
↑ Denning, Tom (1966). "Goff and Jones's The Law of Restitution". Law Quarterly Review. 83: 277.
↑ Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1977] 3 All ER 1, "My Lords, there is no general doctrine of unjust enrichment recognised in English law. What it does is to provide specific remedies in particular cases of what might be classified as unjust enrichment in a legal system that is based upon the civil law. There are some circumstances in which the remedy takes the form of 'subrogation', but this expression embraces more than a single concept in English law."
A quasi-contract is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi contract laws have been deduced from the Latin statement "Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena iactura", which proclaims that no one should grow rich out of another person's loss. It was one of the central doctrines of Roman law.
Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages, restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution.
Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.
Robert Lionel Archibald Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley,, QC was an English barrister and judge who was Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, the equivalent of today's President of the Supreme Court. Best known for establishing unjust enrichment as a branch of English law, he has been described by Andrew Burrows as "the greatest judge of modern times". Goff was the original co-author of Goff & Jones, the leading English law textbook on restitution and unjust enrichment, first published in 1966. He practised as a commercial barrister from 1951 to 1975, following which he began his career as a judge. He was appointed to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in 1986.
English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is a growing body of legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Charles Christopher James Mitchell KC (Hon) is a British legal scholar acknowledged as one of the leading common-law experts on the English law of restitution of unjust enrichment and the law of trusts. He is the author of two leading textbooks and one practitioner's book. He is currently Professor of Law at University College London and Senior Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.
Dextra Bank & Trust Company Limited v Bank of Jamaica[2001] UKPC 50 is an important case in unjust enrichment in the Privy Council.
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment which operates to reduce a defendant's liability to the extent to which his or her circumstances have changed as a consequence of an enrichment.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd[1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision.
Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.
The English law of Restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. Its precise scope and underlying principles remain a matter of significant academic and judicial controversy. Broadly speaking, the law of restitution concerns actions in which one person claims an entitlement in respect of a gain acquired by another, rather than compensation for a loss.
Reading v Attorney-General [1951] AC 507; [1951] UKHL 1 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts.
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc[1993] EWCA Civ 4 is an English trusts law case concerning tracing and receipt of property in breach of trust.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham CC [1996] 4 All ER 733 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant. It rejected a defence of "passing on" the gain against a claim of unjust enrichment.
The local authorities swaps litigation refers to a series of cases during the 1990s under English law relating to interest rate swap transactions entered into between banks and local authorities. The House of Lords ruled that such transactions were unlawful. As a result of the decision over 200 separate actions were filed as hundreds of interest rate swap contracts had to be unwound by the courts at great expense.
Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677, [1979] 3 All ER 522 was a decision of the High Court of Justice relating to the recovery of a payment mistakenly made by a bank after the customer had countermanded the cheque.
Lloyds Bank plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd[1998] EWCA Civ 1853 was a decision of the Court of Appeal relating to the recovery of a payment made by a bank on the mistaken belief that the customer had sufficient cleared funds in the account.
Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter [1993] AC 713 was a judicial decision of House of Lords relating to the right of subrogation where an insurer pays with respect to an insured risk and the assured later recovers damages from a third party with respect to that same loss. The case also determined that the right of subrogation is fortified by an equitable lien over the proceeds of the claim against the third party.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
