The principle of Unjust enrichment is a well grounded principle of the law of restitution. It’s foundations are deeply rooted
in the law of equity since it provides a person with a rememdy in several situations when there is no contractual framework or when the contractual purpose has totally failled.
Since unjust enrichment may be claimed outside a contractual setting it operates on strict guidelines to prevent it from being abused and creating
an unfair situation whereby certain property is claimed from someone else. Hence, in the case of Orakpo v. Manson Investments [1977] 3 All E.R. it was stated that
“Τhere is no general doctrine of unjust enrichment recognised in English law. What it does is to provide specific remedies in particular cases of what might be classified as unjust enrichment
in a legal system that is based on the civil law.”
In the case of Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1960 (02 July 2013) it was quoted from Goff & Jones The Law of Unjust Enrichment (8th Edition) at 6-01, that ” the term “at the claimant’s expense”
“signifies that the claimant must have suffered a loss that was sufficiently closely linked to the defendant’s gain for the law to hold that there was a transfer of value between the parties. This rule reflects the principle that the law of unjust enrichment is not concerned with the disgorgement of gains made by defendants,
nor with the compensation of losses sustained by claimants, but with the reversal of transfers of value between claimants and defendants.”
Unjust enrichment occurs in many different cases and its application is designed to bring about justice.
In the case of Theocharides Nakis and others v. Ioanni Ioannou and others (2012) 1 SCJ 1311 reference was made to the case English case of Banque Financiere de la Cite v. Parc (Battessea) Ltd [1998] 1 All E.R. 737 which set certain bright – lines that are to be followed through, for someone to launch a successful claim in unjust enrichment and regard ought to be had to the following questions: (i) Has the defendant benefited or been enriched? (ii) Was the enrichment at the expense of the defendant? (iii) Was the enrichment unjust? (iv) Are there any defences?
