← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case enrichment at the expense ofunjust enrichment

Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

[2017] UKSC 29
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

The 'at the expense of' requirement in unjust enrichment demands a direct transfer of value from claimant to defendant, and absence of basis is not the English unjust factor approach.

Key Principle

Lord Reed clarified the unjust enrichment framework: the 'at the expense of' requirement means a direct transfer of value, and the unjust factor must be established (absence of basis is not the English approach).

Area of Law

trusts

Related Cases

Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85

Prenuptial agreements set aside for unconscionability and undue influence where inequality of bargaining power existed between the parties.

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392

A casino operator's mere knowledge of a patron's pathological gambling does not constitute unconscionable conduct absent deliberate exploitation of that special disadvantage.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90

A supplier's high-pressure door-to-door sales tactics targeting elderly women constituted unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Investment Trust Companies v R...