← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case unjust enrichmentchange of position

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd

[1991] 2 AC 548
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK House of Lords
Year1991
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Established unjust enrichment as a basis for money had and received claims and recognised change of position as a defence to restitution in English law.

Key Principle

Banker's duty in paying over customer's funds; money had and received; change of position defence to restitutionary claim for stolen money

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd