Restitution
The year 2018 produced only a handful of cases on the law of unjust enrichment and restitution. However, two are seminal cases and of note to the entire common law world: Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui1 (“Ochroid”) and Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua2 (“Turf Club”). Ochroid deal...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3080 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5038/viewcontent/Restitution_SALAR_2019_pv.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | The year 2018 produced only a handful of cases on the law of unjust enrichment and restitution. However, two are seminal cases and of note to the entire common law world: Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui1 (“Ochroid”) and Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua2 (“Turf Club”). Ochroid dealt with the hotly debated topic of the illegality defence against a claim in unjust enrichment for the recovery of money paid pursuant to an illegal contract. Rejecting the newly formulated Patel v Mirza3 approach under English law, the Court of Appeal in Ochroid set Singapore law on a different path, leaving a number of questions that need to be addressed in future cases. Turf Club, on the other hand, laid down the principles concerning the availability of Wrotham Park damages for breach of contract under Singapore law. Converging with English law, it rejected therestitutionary account of the award and, diverging from English law, it enunciated a different framework of analysis. |
|---|