Dispute Resolution analysis: A victim of an authorised push payment fraud can bring an unjust enrichment claim against the electronic money institution, Revolut, and can argue at trial both that Revolut was enriched by the payment and that such enrichment was at the expense of the victim. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: H&P Advisory (H&P) a boutique investment bank claimed for unpaid adviser fees against Barrick Gold (Barrick) a multinational mining company. The claim related to the large scale merger between Barrick and Rangold. H&P alleged that it had been appointed as one of Rangold’s financial advisers on the merger and that it should be entitled to fees for arranging the merger.Most striking is the lack of documentary evidence that passed between the key protagonists in the case. Instead, the court considered the oral evidence of the witnesses and whether what passed between them was sufficient to establish an oral contact for the fees. It was not, however H&P did manage to succeed in its claim for unjust enrichment and was awarded damages of £2m. This is a significant reduction on its claim for £10m. Written by Alex Akin, associate at Keidan Harrison LLP.

This Practice Note considers some of the defences to a claim for restitution for unjust enrichment. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Unjust enrichment—elements of the claim, which explains the background of the law of unjust enrichment and sets out the basic requirements for establishing such a claim. As explained in that Practice Note, the guidance in this document is designed to provide an outline understanding of a particularly complex area of jurisprudence. There are a number of defences that should be considered when faced with a restitutionary claim for unjust enrichment. Essentially, these defences are available where it is either impossible to restore the claimant to the original position prior to the enrichment, or it would be unjust to do so. They are: • change of position renders restitution inequitable • ministerial receipt • bona fide purchaser for value • estoppel to defeat a claim of unjust enrichment • impossibility of counter-restitution can defeat a claim for unjust enrichment • loss suffered is passed on • illegality and incapacity of the underlying transaction (public policy) • limitation Change

What is unjust enrichment and when is it used? A claim based on unjust enrichment is one which seeks to restore to an innocent party the gains that someone else has obtained from them. It is sometimes referred to as ‘restitution’ or a ‘restitutionary claim’, but strictly speaking restitution is the remedy for the cause of action which is unjust enrichment. The confusion arises because the unified theory of ‘unjust enrichment’ arose out of claims which were historically known as restitutionary. The modern law of unjust enrichment has developed out of jurisprudence stretching back over centuries and the central principles were developed by academics which were subsequently adopted by the highest courts. In this way it is an unusual area of jurisprudence because, rather than the principles being set out in legislation and/or case law, a significant amount of the detail and nuance of the relevant law is still discussed and explored in academic texts, parts of which are often cited by judges in addition to relevant case law. It is therefore difficult to understand

As explained in Practice Note: Unjust enrichment—elements of the claim, claims in unjust enrichment generally require consideration of four different matters: • the defendant must have been enriched • that enrichment must have been at the claimant’s expense • there needs to be an ‘unjust factor’ which renders the defendant’s retention of that enrichment unjust • the defendant may have a specific defence Unjust enrichment claims are highly fact-specific. This Practice Note provides examples of how the courts have approached these issues in practice and illustrates the broad range of scenarios in which claims in unjust enrichment may exist. Case details Brief outline of facts Nature of defendant’s enrichment ‘At the claimant’s expense’ Why was the enrichment ‘unjust’? Defences to restitution? Comments AG Retail Num (6) Ltd v Andron Contract Services Ltd [2026] EWHC 1951 (KB)30 July 2026 The claimant had provided facilities management services for a shopping centre. The former leaseholder (Alaska) had gone into receivership and the defendant, Andron, had acquired the lease from the receivers.By mistake, unpaid debts due to the claimant had

This Practice Note summarises the application and purpose of the law of unjustified threats in the UK. Anyone writing or sending a letter or other communication alleging, or even implying, infringement of an IP right in the UK should be aware of the risk of a claim (or counterclaim) being brought against them for threats. Outline of the threats regime Since 1 October 2017, the UK’s threats regime has been governed by the legislative changes introduced by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (IP(UT)A 2017). Under the IP(UT)A 2017 regime, a communication contains a ‘threat of infringement proceedings’ if a reasonable person in the position of a recipient would understand from the communication that: • a right (a patent, a registered trade mark or a registered or unregistered design, or a published application for such) exists, and • a person intends to bring proceedings (in a UK court or elsewhere) against another person for infringement of the right by an act done (or proposed to be done) in the UK The

Employment analysis: The various protections for the employee built into section 147 of Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) do not exclude the settlement of future claims so long as the types of claim are clearly identified and the objective meaning of the words used encompassed settlement of the relevant claim. A settlement agreement can relate to a future complaint if there is sufficient description of it in the claims waived, according to the Inner House of the Court of Session.

This Practice Note examines the practical steps an employer should consider when faced with actual, threatened or suspected unlawful competitive activity by a current or former employee, before issuing substantive court proceedings. Need to avoid repudiatory breach Where the alleged unlawful competitive activity is being undertaken by one or more of the employer's existing employees, the over-arching issue for the employer to bear in mind at all times when dealing with the employee(s) concerned is to avoid acts (or omissions) which may give the employee grounds to claim constructive dismissal, ie any actual or anticipatory breach of contract by the employer that goes to the root of the contract so as to be sufficiently serious to justify the employee's resignation without notice. For further guidance on the legal and practical issues to consider in relation to constructive dismissal generally, see Practice Note: Constructive dismissal. If such acts or omissions do occur, the employee may opt to accept the employer's breach, resign and claim constructive dismissal. The employee will also readily allege constructive dismissal,

Unlawful confinement describes the situation where a person is intentionally restricted, detained or imprisoned without lawful authority or valid consent. In UK and Irish legal practice it is often used as a descriptive umbrella term rather than a precise statutory label, overlapping with offences and civil wrongs such as false imprisonment, unlawful detention and kidnapping/abduction.Across England & Wales and Northern Ireland, the core concept aligns with the common law tort and crime of false imprisonment: the complete restriction of a person’s freedom of movement without lawful justification. In Scotland, similar conduct is principally addressed under the common law crime of abduction and, in some contexts, wrongful arrest or detention. In Ireland, unlawful confinement is commonly used to describe conduct falling within false imprisonment and related statutory offences.Key legal issues typically include: absence of lawful power (for example, no warrant or statutory authority), lack of genuine consent, and the intentional or reckless nature of the restriction. Unlawful confinement frequently arises in criminal proceedings, civil claims for damages, police powers litigation, mental health and capacity law, and cases concerning deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Information Law analysis: The Court of Justice's judgment in Meta Platforms Inc v Bundeskartellamt has significant implications at the intersection of data protection law and competition law. In a notable departure from the case of Asnef-Equifax et al v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios, EU:C:2006:734. 4 Asnef-Equifax, Case C-238/05, the Court of Justice decided that a national competition authority can examine compliance with data protection law to determine whether an infringement of data protection law had contributed to a breach of competition law. The Court of Justice also set out strict requirements for legal bases of processing for personalised advertising. In relation to special category data, it confirmed broad application of Article 9 of the EU GDPR and the requirements that must be met to consider such data ‘manifestly made public’ in the social media context. Written by Anna Rawlinson (CIPP/E, CIPM), senior associate at Fieldfisher LLP.

A company has an implied power to distribute its profits to its members, unless its articles of association provide otherwise. ’Distribution’ is given a very wide definition for the purpose of Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006 (ss 829–853) (CA 2006). A distribution is every description of distribution of a company’s assets to its members, whether in cash or otherwise, except: • an issue of bonus shares (whether fully-paid or partly-paid), and • certain: ◦ reductions of share capital ◦ redemptions of shares ◦ share buybacks, and ◦ distributions of assets to members on the winding up of a company For a detailed discussion of what a distribution is, see Practice Note: Distributions. A dividend is one type of distribution that may be made by a company to its members. The ordinary meaning of 'dividend' is a share of profits, whether at a fixed rate or otherwise, allocated to the holders of shares in a company. It is used in relation to payments made to shareholders as shareholders and not,

This Practice Note explains what unlawful eviction is, how and when it may arise from a civil perspective, the civil remedies available and potential consequential causes of action. Unlawful eviction Unlawful eviction (or illegal eviction) is defined in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (PEA 1977) and is a criminal offence. An action for unlawful eviction arises when a landlord or another person deprives, or attempts to deprive, a residential occupier of their occupation of a property without using the legally prescribed means to do so. A ‘residential occupier’ is defined as: ‘…a person occupying the premises as a residence, whether under a contract or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of any other person to recover possession of the premises.’ This definition applies to tenants and licensees. However, it does not apply to a contractual licensee whose licence has expired—R v Blankley [1979] Crim LR 166 (not reported by LexisNexis®) (decided