Abstract
Suppose I steal your wallet, am I unjustly enriched at your expense? If yes, can you bring a claim in unjust enrichment against me even though you will potentially have a claim in conversion? The answers are not clear in English law. In this thesis, I will argue that when someone uses or is in possession of another’s asset, a liability in unjust enrichment can arise. First, I will argue that a claim in unjust enrichment is not subsidiary to “property” claims, such as conversion. Second, I will argue that even though cases on this matter are rare and not very clear, Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd shows that the law of unjust enrichment has a role to play in the protection of ownership. Third, the elements of unjust enrichment liability can be satisfied where someone uses or is in possession of another’s asset without the latter’s consent. Fourth, the availability of unjust enrichment claims for protecting ownership has practical benefits. Sometimes the claim can fill a gap where conversion is unavailable, but where the claimant is still understood to be the owner (as in Lipkin itself). It may also be practically beneficial for the claimant to have the option to choose between unjust enrichment and conversion if both claims were available. Finally, I suggest that accepting the role of unjust enrichment in protecting ownership may affect how we define ownership in a way that is not limited to the law of tort.Thesis is embargoed until 31 July 2028.
| Date of Award | Jul 2023 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Mark Hanna (Supervisor) & Robin Hickey (Supervisor) |