I’ve previously blogged (1 | 2 | 3) about the case brought by film-maker Neville Presho, whose holiday home on Tory Island had disappeared in his absence, replaced by a car park for an adjacent hotel. It was a colourful case, in which interesting unjust enrichment issues arose, but I was unable to say more on that aspect of the case as no written judgment was made available at the time. However, it has recently been uploaded to the Courts Service judgments database. In Presho v Doohan [2009] IEHC 619 (17 July 2009) Murphy J explained what happened to the elusive unjust enrichment issue:

6. Unjust enrichment
While not pleaded, the court considered, in addition to the circumstantial evidence, whether and if so, to what extent it was proper to consider restitution either as a quasi contractual or equitable remedy. The court allowed an opportunity to the plaintiff to consider an amendment. No such amendment was made, though the defendants made written submissions.

The court does not propose to address the matter.