Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 (6 June 1991) is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 (6 June 1991) is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision. (en)
|
name
| - Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dct:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
transcripts
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
caption
| - Lipkin Gorman's offices (en)
|
citations
| - [1988] UKHL 12 (en)
- [1991] 2 AC 548 (en)
- [1991] 3 WLR 10 (en)
- [1992] 4 All ER 331 (en)
|
court
| |
full name
| - Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, and Lloyds Bank plc (en)
|
judges
| |
keywords
| - Unjust enrichment, change of position (en)
|
has abstract
| - Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 (6 June 1991) is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision. Although the case is most famous for the transformative judgment handed down by the House of Lords in relation to restitution and unjust enrichment, the decision of the Court of Appeal is also an important banking law decision in its own right, setting out key principles relating to the duty of care owed by bankers to their customers. There was no appeal against that part of the decision to the House of Lords. (en)
|
date decided
| |
prior actions
| - [1987] 1 WLR 987 (en)
- [1989] 1 WLR 1340 (en)
|
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |