- The transcript may not lie but it does not tell the whole story—difficulties of summary determination of oral contract and unjust enrichment claims (Richards v Kulczyk)
- What are the practical implications of this case
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case is of interest to practitioners for three reasons. First, when oral contracts are in issue, determination on a summary basis is rarely appropriate—and the existence of a transcript does not necessarily change that. Second, the interaction between unjust enrichment and contract is a complex area of law. This case stands as a warning that practitioners should be wary about seeking summary determination of unjust enrichment claims when a relevant contract may be lurking in the background. Third, an argument that there has been a breach of the duty to provide full and frank disclosure can come too late; any such argument should be raised at the earliest opportunity if it is to bite. Written by Tim Benham-Mirando, barrister at Serle Court (and junior counsel in the case).
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial