← All Authorities
Hong Kong illegalityillegality restitution

Monat Investment

[2023] HKCA 479
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Appeal
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Hong Kong Court of Appeal effected a change in HK law on illegality, shifting the applicable public policy principles governing illegality as a vitiating factor.

Key Principle

The decision effected a change in Hong Kong law on illegality that shifted Hong Kong public policy.

Area of Law

equity

Related Cases

Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560

Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment for mistaken payments where the defendant has detrimentally relied on the receipt.

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498

Unjust enrichment claims for money paid under illegal contracts may succeed if recovery is consistent with the statutory policy underlying the illegality.

Friend v Brooker (2009) 239 CLR 129

Equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty does not require but-for causation, and a fiduciary must account for profits made in breach of their stringent obligations.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Monat Investment and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Monat Investment