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

Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP

[2017] UKSC 32
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Unjust enrichment requires enrichment 'at the expense of' the claimant; where a third party confers the benefit, it must be attributable to the claimant via agency or otherwise.

Key Principle

A claimant in unjust enrichment must show the enrichment was 'at the expense of' the claimant; where a third party provided the benefit, the claimant must show the third party was acting as the claimant's agent or the payment is attributable to the claimant.

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 Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP