Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
These questions are a familiar part of the modern English law of unjust enrichment, having been popularised by the writing of Professor Peter Birks and expressly endorsed by English courts. [ 17 ] [ 18 ] The framework provides a useful taxonomical function in Australian law, [ 19 ] though, the concept of unjust enrichment has been subject to ...
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313 [1] was a decision of the English Court of Chancery which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action. The case remains good law, and is still cited as authority for the original principle today. [2] [3]
English courts have recognised that there are four steps required to establish a claim in unjust enrichment. [2] If the following elements are satisfied, a claimant has a prima facie right to restitution: the defendant has been enriched; this enrichment is at the claimant's expense; this enrichment at the claimant's expense is unjust; and
Nevertheless, if that broad principle is approved and applied by later courts, then the principle will eventually be treated as ratio. A particular example is the broad "neighbour principle", enunciated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson 1932, which has become the basis of the modern law of negligence. When judges may face conflicting ...
Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person , given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement.
The process consisted of a Rule Committee of the Supreme Court revising and re-writing the entire body of rules governing civil procedure in the Supreme Court. The process was undertaken in two stages. First, around half of the Rules were revised and reintroduced on 1 January 1964 by the Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1962 (SI 1962/2145).
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness.