Elise Bant, Kit Barker and Simone Degeling (eds), Research Handbook on Unjust Enrichment and Restitution

DOI10.3366/elr.2021.0685
Published date01 January 2021
Date01 January 2021
Pages140-141
Author

“This Handbook is nothing less than a stunning achievement”, realising its aim “in spectacular fashion” (ix). So opens Justice Edelman's justifiably generous foreword to this work. In it, his Honour engagingly introduces two dozen chapters by twenty-seven scholars – both leading lights, and rising stars – and, now, one fellow judge of an apex Common Law court, Lord Burrows.

The editors’ goal is for this book “to serve as the ideal springboard for the scholar, practitioner, law reformer or judge seeking access to and understanding of this challenging, complex and critically important field of private law” (2). They have hit the back of the net. We get a smorgasbord of snapshots of the state of the art in the history, taxonomy, philosophy, analytical structure of, defences to, and remedies for, unjust enrichment. Comparative perspectives abound. The position across legal traditions is a theme of several chapters. But much comparison in the book is of major jurisdictions in the Common Law tradition. The obvious worth of this has been affirmed before (by e.g. J Edelman and E Bant, Unjust Enrichment, 2nd edn (2016) 1–2).

So many chapters spanning so much content, generally of very high quality, result in a volume to which every anglophone private and commercial lawyer with more than a passing interest in the field will require access, hot on the heels of their leading practitioner-level texts on unjust enrichment and commercial remedies. The best thing about the book is that it provides quite a full one-stop-shop for head-on engagement with many persistent debates about a core private law concept, of which we still struggle so much to make sense. This is not always possible (or desirable) to the same extent in textbooks. Understandably, many of them will largely be concerned with explanations of the authorities (not an entirely neutral pursuit, of course: see Lord Reed's remarks on descriptive accounts in “Theory and Practice” in A Dyson et al (eds), Defences in Unjust Enrichment (2016)). These, the courts have reminded us, constitute the “starting point” for attempts to understand the law of unjust enrichment (Investment Trust Companies (in liq) v HM Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] EWCA Civ 82, [2015] STC 1280 para 47; reversed on other grounds by the Supreme Court, which also emphasised “centuries’ worth of relevant authorities [as] a valuable resource”, and discouraged the courts from “reinventing the wheel”: [2017] UKSC 29, [2018] AC 275 para 40).

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT