← All Authorities
Singapore Leading Case unjust enrichmentenrichment at the expense of

Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter (Unjust Enrichment)

[2009] SGCA 3
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2009
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Singapore Court of Appeal confirmed unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action requiring: enrichment, at the claimant's expense, an unjust factor, and absence of defences.

Key Principle

Singapore recognises unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action with four elements: enrichment, at the expense of the claimant, unjust factor, and no defence.

Area of Law

contract

Related Cases

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560

On termination of a building contract, a builder may recover reasonable value of work done in restitution, subject to the contract price as a ceiling where work was performed under a valid contract.

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525

Bank late payment fees are not penalties where they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss or protect a legitimate interest of the stipulating party.

Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85

High Court of Australia examined the principles governing rectification of written contracts for common intention and unilateral mistake in equity.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter (Unjust Enrichment) and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Ter...