Armstrong v Winnington Networks

7/25/2019 Armstrong v Winnington Networks

1/3

Armstrong v Winnington Networks.Harris Jofe

There were two claims, as distinguished in Foskett and per Dr Smith

Proprietary RestitutionClaim at Common Law (B)

Claim in restitution for unjustenrichment (A)

Personal claim parasitic on theprior violation o a proprietaryright,

Based upon the notion that thedeendant has been enriched at theclaimants e!pense and should sodisgorge the pro"ts#

$indication o property rights %eversal o un&ust enrichment#%e'uires

()*D in receipt o property(+* that belonged to #

NOT concerned aboutshowing that the deendanthas been enriched# He couldhave paid ull sum and still bere'uired to return the propertyWinnington.

%e'uires()*D has been enriched (+* at

s e!pense

NOT concerned about showing thatthe property in the hands o thedeendant is a traceable substitute#The passing o B- to the deendantis no deence# .ndeed it ounds theclaim#

/'uitys darling# hange o position

The 'uestion here was one o ollowing the /01s, but then tracinginto the proceeds as substitutes or the property the claimantsinitially held#

Lipkin Gorman)# Based on tracing# The "rm sought to trace it original property

subsisting in th echoes in action constituted by its ban2balance into the cash ass obtained as the proceeds o theche'ue written in his avour by the asino#

+# Special on the basis that the contractual dealings betweenass and the lub were void ab initio as they were gamblingcontracts# The club gave no consideration, and 3ordTempleman held that had this not been the case there wouldhave been no action in un&ust enrichment at all because therewould have been no enrichment#

4# .t was a case o proprietary restitution claim at commonlaw. 5of was at pains to stress that the Solicitors retainedlegal title throughout (possible as the money held or ass bythe asino was in a separate current account*# Foskett saidso# So did Beldam 3J inones v ones.

ones v ones


2/3

)# Based on common law# The plaintifs retained title and thedeendant never ac'uired legal title or e'uitable title (she wasno constructive trust in her avour*# The appropriate cause oaction was an action or debt against %aphaels ban2#

Foskett v !c"eown.()*# table#(+*1lthough he was tal2ing about e'uitable rights, they apply

with e'ual orce to the enorcement o legal rights in property#(Winnington*

oncludes that there is such a common law claim to proprietaryrestitution6 B0T it does not apply to chattels and land (as tort oconversion covers this*# .t is not the same as money had andreceived as it can also apply to choses in action (as on the acts oones v ones* .n other words, if the legal title remains vested withthe claimant a proprietary restitutionary claim at common law isavailable in respect o receipt by the deendant o a chose in action#

#njust $nrichment Claim7o claim as the deendants had not been enriched at the claimantse!pense# They had paid ull satisaction o the /01s, albeit to a thirdparty# 3ord Templeman in Lipkin opinion prevents this claim as therehas been no enrichment#

BUT

()*8or this to succeed you would need to &ustiy that LipkinGorman was a case based on the reversal o un&ustenrichment at common law#

(+*This is very di9cult given millet in Foskett who emphaticallyre&ected the 0/ basis or tracing#

(4*However, given that Foskett was a case dealing solely with theassertion o proprietary rights in e'uity, it could be said that:illet did not technically re&ect 0/ as the basis or commonlaw tracing#

(;*Thereore, Lipkin Gorman can be read as a case dealing withthe reversal o un&ust enrichment#

a# BUT legal title would have to had remained in thedeendant throughout#

Bona Fide!u"stance:illet in !ac!illan %nc v &ishopsgate. 0ntil and unless alerted thedeendant is allowed to assume that he is dealing with honest men#

3ord 7euberger in 'inclair %nvestments (#") Ls v ersialles ra*eFinance. Stated that depending on the conte!t, a deendant may

have ought to have appreciated that a proprietary claim was in


3/3

e!istence or ta2en steps to so ascertain# i#e# carry out the ; and e'uitable title# 7-, also applies at law# 3ord Templemanin Lipkin+ on the understanding that this is indeed a caseo common law restitution and considered that the

deence was available# Winnington.o 1lso on the basis that legal title binds the world#

Cannot apply to 0/# . a deendant purchases with notice,how can he then rely on his subse'uent s'uandering o themoney as a change in position# 5of only tal2ed o change oposition in the conte!t o 0/#

hange o position!u"stanceNiru &atter,.Bad aith is not limited to dishonesty#

ones v Churcher can re'uire positive duties to act#

#pplication

1pplies to 0/ per foskett and lipkin.

Does not apply to 3%#o Templeman in Lipkin tal2ed o B8 only in the conte!t o

P%, not in the conte!t o 0/#o Winnington.

Stolen property is a9!ed with a trust when the act o thet itsel iscommitted in avour o the bene"ciaries# West*eutsche. . not, thevery act o receipt which creates the trust would, i accepted,prevent a claim on the basis that, at that moment, they had not yetreceived property sub&ect to a trust# @ou could never hace 2nowingassistance claims#

Documents

Armstrong v Winnington Networks