Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 32.9 MB]
Categories:
Litigation & Dispute Resolution
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:

This podcast examines the common law cause of action of unjust enrichment. It outlines the way in which there has been an extension of the premise of unjust enrichment away from simply money had and received, to include for example, intangible benefits and services. The podcast also summarises the basis of an unjust enrichment claim before turning to its relationship with contract law.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Understand what the common law cause of action of unjust enrichment is;
  • Be aware of the way in which the premise of unjust enrichment has extended away from simply money had and received;
  • Understand the basis of an unjust enrichment claim;
  • Appreciate the relationship between unjust enrichment and contract law.
Level:
General Interest Difficulty: 2 of 5
Classification:
Legal Principles
Legislative Updates
Sources and References:
  • Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2012] 3 All ER 425;
  • Banque Financiere v Parc [1999] 1 AC 221;
  • Blue Haven Enterprises v Tully [2006] UKPC 17;
  • Brown and Davis v Galbraith [1972] 1 WLR 997;
  • Costello v MacDonald [2011] EWCA Civ 930;
  • Foskett v McKeon [2000] 1 AC 102;
  • Gibb v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 678;
  • Goff & Jones: The Law of Restitution 7th Edition (2009) Sweet & Maxwell Ltd;
  • Goff & Jones: Law of Unjust Enrichment, 8th Edition (2010) Sweet & Maxwell Ltd;
  • Guinness Mahon & Co Ltd. v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [1999] QB 215;
  • Kelly v Solari (1841) 9MW 54;
  • Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale [1991] 2 AC 548;
  • Nightingal v Devisme (1770) 5 Burr 2589;
  • Niru Battery Manufacturing Company & Anor v Milestone Trading Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 487;
  • Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd. V Creditcorp Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 161;
  • Peter Birks, ‘Unjust Enrichment’ Second Edition (2005) Clarendon Law Series;
  • Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd. [2001] HCA 68;
  • Uren v First International Finance Ltd. [2005] EWHC Ch 2529;
  • Westdeutsche Landesbank Grozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669 (HL).

In this podcast, Philip Flower from 9 Stone Buildings examines the common law cause of action of unjust enrichment and its relationship with contract law. The podcast considers unjust enrichment claims where a contract is held to be void and invalid and, where a contract is held to be partially valid.

NEW! TRANSCRIPT INCLUDED IN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Date Recorded: 17th October 2012

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com