Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this chapter I contrast the different approaches of the High Court of Australia and of the House of Lords (and Privy Council) in relation to that controversial concept, unjust enrichment. In particular, I will compare the treatment of unjust enrichment with the differing approaches of the courts in relation to equitable concepts, such as unconscionable conduct, and equity's capacity flexibly to shape remedy. In the context of equity, there are discernible though more subtle differences between the views of the High Court and the House of Lords. At first blush, the contrasting judicial positions that I will describe, although not polar opposites, are at least significantly at odds. In part, this is a consequence of highlighting some of the rhetoric contained in judgments in isolation from the decisions themselves. Although the differences of substance between the courts are not as stark as some of the rhetoric might suggest, nonetheless, such differences also exist, at least as a result of decisions in the last 15 years or so. I will seek to give some tentative reasons for why the different positions have developed. This interesting exercise may raise more questions than will be answered.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationFault lines in equity
EditorsJames Glister, Pauline Ridge
Place of PublicationOxford, UK
PublisherHart Publishing
Pages1-26
Number of pages26
ISBN (Print)9781849462198
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

rhetoric
equity
remedies
social isolation

Cite this

Dietrich, J. (2012). Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia. In J. Glister, & P. Ridge (Eds.), Fault lines in equity (pp. 1-26). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Dietrich, Joachim. / Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia. Fault lines in equity. editor / James Glister ; Pauline Ridge. Oxford, UK : Hart Publishing, 2012. pp. 1-26
@inbook{aa2f519b879148f2b5ff153ba573991f,
title = "Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia",
abstract = "In this chapter I contrast the different approaches of the High Court of Australia and of the House of Lords (and Privy Council) in relation to that controversial concept, unjust enrichment. In particular, I will compare the treatment of unjust enrichment with the differing approaches of the courts in relation to equitable concepts, such as unconscionable conduct, and equity's capacity flexibly to shape remedy. In the context of equity, there are discernible though more subtle differences between the views of the High Court and the House of Lords. At first blush, the contrasting judicial positions that I will describe, although not polar opposites, are at least significantly at odds. In part, this is a consequence of highlighting some of the rhetoric contained in judgments in isolation from the decisions themselves. Although the differences of substance between the courts are not as stark as some of the rhetoric might suggest, nonetheless, such differences also exist, at least as a result of decisions in the last 15 years or so. I will seek to give some tentative reasons for why the different positions have developed. This interesting exercise may raise more questions than will be answered.",
author = "Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781849462198",
pages = "1--26",
editor = "James Glister and Pauline Ridge",
booktitle = "Fault lines in equity",
publisher = "Hart Publishing",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Dietrich, J 2012, Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia. in J Glister & P Ridge (eds), Fault lines in equity. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 1-26.

Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia. / Dietrich, Joachim.

Fault lines in equity. ed. / James Glister; Pauline Ridge. Oxford, UK : Hart Publishing, 2012. p. 1-26.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - In this chapter I contrast the different approaches of the High Court of Australia and of the House of Lords (and Privy Council) in relation to that controversial concept, unjust enrichment. In particular, I will compare the treatment of unjust enrichment with the differing approaches of the courts in relation to equitable concepts, such as unconscionable conduct, and equity's capacity flexibly to shape remedy. In the context of equity, there are discernible though more subtle differences between the views of the High Court and the House of Lords. At first blush, the contrasting judicial positions that I will describe, although not polar opposites, are at least significantly at odds. In part, this is a consequence of highlighting some of the rhetoric contained in judgments in isolation from the decisions themselves. Although the differences of substance between the courts are not as stark as some of the rhetoric might suggest, nonetheless, such differences also exist, at least as a result of decisions in the last 15 years or so. I will seek to give some tentative reasons for why the different positions have developed. This interesting exercise may raise more questions than will be answered.

AB - In this chapter I contrast the different approaches of the High Court of Australia and of the House of Lords (and Privy Council) in relation to that controversial concept, unjust enrichment. In particular, I will compare the treatment of unjust enrichment with the differing approaches of the courts in relation to equitable concepts, such as unconscionable conduct, and equity's capacity flexibly to shape remedy. In the context of equity, there are discernible though more subtle differences between the views of the High Court and the House of Lords. At first blush, the contrasting judicial positions that I will describe, although not polar opposites, are at least significantly at odds. In part, this is a consequence of highlighting some of the rhetoric contained in judgments in isolation from the decisions themselves. Although the differences of substance between the courts are not as stark as some of the rhetoric might suggest, nonetheless, such differences also exist, at least as a result of decisions in the last 15 years or so. I will seek to give some tentative reasons for why the different positions have developed. This interesting exercise may raise more questions than will be answered.

UR - http://www.bloomsbury.com/in/fault-lines-in-equity-9781847319432/

UR - https://www.worldcat.org/title/fault-lines-in-equity/oclc/838889317&referer=brief_results

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781849462198

SP - 1

EP - 26

BT - Fault lines in equity

A2 - Glister, James

A2 - Ridge, Pauline

PB - Hart Publishing

CY - Oxford, UK

ER -

Dietrich J. Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia. In Glister J, Ridge P, editors, Fault lines in equity. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. 2012. p. 1-26