Mark Leeming, ‘Subrogation, Equity and Unjust Enrichment’

Is “unjust enrichment” merely a unifying theme, or is it something more, a legal norm in its own right capable of supplying answers to particular cases? Or, if that is a false distinction, and indeed “unjust enrichment” may be either, then what approach is more likely to result in a legal system whose operation is clear, certain and coherent? This paper is directed to those questions. It notes the highly divergent approaches to a single doctrine – subrogation – in the House of Lords and the High Court of Australia, with a view to evaluating which mode of reasoning leads to clarity, transparency and coherence.

Leeming, Mark, Subrogation, Equity and Unjust Enrichment. FAULT LINES IN EQUITY, J. Glister and P. Ridge, eds., Hart Publishing: Oxford, pp. 27-43, 2012; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 12/52.

First posted 2012-08-07 21:46:25

Leave a Reply