Restitution

• Main Author: YEO, Tiong Min
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2011
• Subjects: Asian Studies; Commercial Law; Contracts; Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1077; https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_rmit_collectionsjats_search_informit_org_doi_10_3316_informit_989978004687515&context=PC&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Singapore%20Academy%20of%20Law%20Annual%20Review%20of%20Cases%202011%20restitution&offset=0
• Institution: Singapore Management University

The most important case on restitution in 2010 is probably the Court of Appeal decision in George Raymond Zage III v Ho Chi Kwong [2010] 2 SLR 589 (Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and V K Rajah JA) which discussed the state of knowledge required to establish liability for knowing receipt of misapplied trust property and implicitly rejected the strict liablity restitutionary analysis. In addition, there were a number of decisions on different aspects of the law of restitution. Notable on a preliminary point is Cheng William v DBS Bank Ltd [2010] SGHC 34 at [42] (Lai Siu Chiu J), where the court disallowed an application by the plaintiff at the beginning of the trial to amend the reliefs sought to include a claim for restitution, because such a claim based on unjust enrichment had not been pleaded by the plaintiff. This is a useful reminder that the law of unjust enrichment stands alongside contract and torts as an independent source of obligations to be considered while drafting the pleadings, and it is not a vague principle of justice to be resorted to as a remedy of last recourse.