If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email firstname.lastname@example.org
The House of Lord's recent decision in DMG was keenly anticipated by restitution lawyers as potentially answering the fundamental question whether the English law of unjust enrichment had embraced the continental notion of ‘absence of basis’ as the key to liability. Instead of answering that question, the decision in DMG may have complicated it. While several of their Lordships expressed cautious support for the ‘absence of basis’ approach, it is noted that the majority's approach to liability for mistake of law may have further entrenched the traditional approach to liability for unjust enrichment based on the identification of ‘unjust factors’.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: January 1, 2006
More about this publication?
The Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal (OUCLJ) is the flagship journal of Oxford University's postgraduate law community, produced under the aegis of the Law Faculty. It is published twice-yearly and endeavours to foster international academic debate and exchange on a wide range of legal topics of interest throughout the Commonwealth.