Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 46.6 MB]
Categories:
Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Remedies & Enforcement
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

In this two-part CPDcast series Philip Flower from 9 Stone Buildings discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50 which clarifies a number of the problems which have arisen in the quantification of claims in unjust enrichment where services have been rendered by a claimant to a defendant. He makes clear what the essential ingredients of a claim in unjust enrichment are and the problems raised by this restitutionary claim.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Understand the essential ingredients of a claim in unjust enrichment;
  • Have considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50;
  • Understand the implications of the Court’s decision in Benedetti.
Level:
General Interest Difficulty: 2 of 5
Classification:
Legal Principles
Legislative Updates
Market Update / Hot Topic
Sources and References:
  • Benedetti v Sawiris [2010] EWCA Civ 1427, [2013] UKSC 50;
  • Goff & Jones (2011), ‘The Law of Unjust Enrichment, 8th ed’, Sweet & Maxwell;
  • Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12;
  • Ministry of Defence v Ashman [1993] 2 EGLR 102;
  • Sempra Metals Ltd v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another [2007] HL 34;
  • Taylor v Laird (1856) 25 L.J. Ex. 329;
  • Way v Latilla [1937] 3 All ER 759.
Tags:

In this two-part CPDcast series Philip Flower from 9 Stone Buildings discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50 which clarifies a number of the problems which have arisen in the quantification of claims in unjust enrichment where services have been rendered by a claimant to a defendant.

Date Recorded: 6th November 2013

NEW! TRANSCRIPT INCLUDED IN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com