A conference on the theme of the Global Futures of Unjust Enrichment will be held on Friday 21 April 2017 and Saturday 22 April 2017 in the UCL Gustave Tuck Theatre, Wilkins Building, Gower Street, London WC1 (map here).

The Bentham House Conference 2017 celebrates the publication of the 50th anniversary edition of Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment, and honours the memory of the book’s first authors, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Professor Gareth Jones, who both died in 2016. The conference brings together leading scholars from around the world to consider the future of unjust enrichment in overseas jurisdictions, and to discuss current problems and controversies in English law.

The emergence of the law of unjust enrichment as a distinct part of the law of obligations was the most important and radical development in English private law of the last hundred years. Academic writing played a significant role in this development, and most significant of all was Robert Goff and Gareth Jones’s seminal work on the topic in 1966. The speakers paying tribute to Goff and Jones are a veritable who’s-who of contemporary private law. On Friday 21 April 2017, they will discuss the future trajectory of the law of unjust enrichment in overseas jurisdictions; and on Saturday 22 April 2017, they will consider a series of important issues which have been thrown up by the English case law over the past decade, and which will require significant further attention from the courts.…

Read More »

I am delighted to post this on behalf of Professor Lionel Smith:

The Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative Law intends to appoint a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with effect from August 2016 or other agreed date. The position is funded by an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The principal investigator is Professor Lionel Smith, researcher at the Crépeau Centre, and the team is composed of colleagues from McGill’s Faculty of Law and beyond. The position is for one year, with the possibility of renewal for a second year.

ABOUT THE PAUL-ANDRÉ CRÉPEAU CENTRE FOR PRIVATE AND COMPARATIVE LAW
Based at McGill University in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) the Crépeau Centre is the only research centre in Canada devoted to research in fundamental private law. Quebec’s private law is civilian, but it evolves in a North American environment that is otherwise largely grounded in the common law. Quebec’s private law therefore provides a living model for the fruitful coexistence of two legal traditions, in which the ongoing interaction of the common law and the civil law is combined with the interaction of French and English in Quebec’s bilingual civil law.…

Read More »

In US House of Representatives v Burwell (pdf), US District Judge Rosemary M Collyer has today upheld the challenge of the House of Representatives to a portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), ruling that the government had wrongly spent billions of dollars in the past two years to reimburse insurance companies for providing health coverage at lower costs to low and moderate income consumers. There is no mention in the judgment about the recovery of the unauthorised reimbursements, but the case plainly raises that question, which I have been discussing in a series of posts (I, II, III, IV, V, & V(a)) on this blog. There is another post to come in the series, and an addendum – but the implications on Burwell are too big to postpone.

The judge set up the issue in this way:

This case involves two sections of the Affordable Care Act: 1401 and 1402. Section 1401 provides tax credits to make insurance premiums more affordable, while Section 1402 reduces deductibles, co-pays, and other means of “cost sharing” by insurers. Section 1401 was funded by adding it to a preexisting list of permanently-appropriated tax credits and refunds.

Read More »

From today’s Sunday Independent comes a story by Maeve Sheehan which has many echoes of an earlier story that Department of Agriculture overpayments of €70m in EU grants to farmers would not be recovered. The earlier story prompted my current series of posts (I, II, III, IV, & V) on the recovery of unauthorised State payments. Today’s story goes right to the heart of the issues I have been discussing in that series. It based on a report to the Garda Commissioner in relation to financial control released to the Sunday Independent under freedom of information legislation last week, which found that Gardaí received overpayments totalling more than €1m in pensions and salaries, and that some of these overpayments will have to be written off at the expense of the taxpayer:

Embarrassing gaffe as gardai were ‘overpaid by more than €1.1m’

… The Garda’s internal audit unit put overpayments of salaries and pensions at €1,139,014 at the end of 2014, €184,000 more than in 2013, according to a report obtained by the Sunday Independent. Less than half of the gardai who were overpaid had plans in place to repay it. The force’s internal audit unit concluded: “It is likely that write-off of some of this debt will be required but every effort is being made to recoup as much of this amount as possible.”

Read More »

Last month, officials at the Illinois Department of Revenue said that there had been overpayments since 2014 totalling US$168 million to some 6,500 districts across Illinois. The Department says that it’s sensitive to the impact recovering the funds will have on the districts, and it will therefore allow them to repay the money slowly. But repay it they must, unless legislation forgives the debts. It is a stark example of the issues which I have been discussing on this blog in a series of posts on the principles underlying restitution claims made by the Executive. The series was prompted by media reports that the taxpayer has been hit with a €70m bill for overpaid farmers. In my first post in the series, I established the principle associated with Auckland Harbour Board v R [1924] AC 318; [1923] UKPC 92, [1923] NZPC 3 (18 December 1923) [Auckland] and Attorney General v Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland [1925] AC 754 (HL) [GSWR]. This principle has two limbs: first, State payments must be authorised (this is the authorisation limb of the principle, which I discussed in my second and third posts); and second, unauthorised State payments can be recovered if they can be identified (this is the restitution limb of the principle, which I discussed in my fourth post).…

Read More »

This is the fourth post in a series on the principles underlying restitution claims made by the Executive (there will be six posts in total on those principles, plus an addendum on related issues). The series was prompted by media reports that the taxpayer has been hit with a €70m bill for overpaid farmers, which led me to wonder whether the State could recover overpayments made to farmers under EU schemes. To begin to answer that question, in my first post in the series, I established the principle associated with Auckland Harbour Board v R [1924] AC 318; [1923] UKPC 92, [1923] NZPC 3 (18 December 1923) [Auckland] and Attorney General v Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland [1925] AC 754 (HL) [GSWR]. This principle has two limbs: first, State payments must be authorised (this is the authorisation limb of the principle); and second, unauthorised State payments can be recovered if they can be identified (this is the restitution limb of the principle). There is a strong common law line of authority on the authorisation limb, which I discussed in my second post in this series. Moreover, the authorisation limb has been afforded constitutional status in Australia; it is at least on its way to a similar status in Ireland if it hasn’t got there already; and I discussed this constitutionalisation of the authorisation limb in my third post in this series.…

Read More »

In two earlier posts, I have considered the question of whether the State could recover overpayments made to farmers under EU schemes. In the first post, I established that the principle in Auckland Harbour Board v R [1924] AC 318; [1923] UKPC 92, [1923] NZPC 3 (18 December 1923) [Auckland] and Attorney General v Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland [1925] AC 754 (HL) [GSWR] has two limbs. First, State payments must be authorised (this is the authorisation limb of the principle). Second, unauthorised State payments can be recovered if they can be identified (this is the restitution limb of the principle, and it is a claim to restitution of unjust enrichment, because the recipient of the unauthorised payment has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the State). In the second post, I discussed the common law authorities on the first – authorisation – limb of the principle. In particular, cases such as Steel, Ford and Newton v CPS (otherwise Holden v CPS (No 2)) [1994] 1 AC 22 (HL), Re McFarland [2004] 1 WLR 1289, [2004] UKHL 17 (29 April 2004), and – especially – R v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario [2013] 3 SCR 3, 2013 SCC 43 (CanLII) (1 August 2013) establish that, as a matter of common law, no money can be taken out of the Consolidated Fund into which the revenues of the State have been paid, without Parliamentary authorisation.…

Read More »