Skip to main content
Contribution to Book
Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia
Fault Lines in Equity
  • Joachim Dietrich, Bond University
Date of this Version
Document Type
Book Chapter
Publication Details

Citation only

Dietrich, J. (2012). Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia. In J. Glister & P. Ridge (Eds.). Fault Lines in Equity (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Hart Publishing

Access the publisher's website

2012 HERDC submission. FoR codes: 180112; 180105

© Copyright The editors and contributors separately

Extract: In this chapter I contrast the different approaches of the High Court of Australia and of the House of Lords (and Privy Council) in relation to that controversial concept, unjust enrichment. In particular, I will compare the treatment of unjust enrichment with the differing approaches of the courts in relation to equitable concepts, such as unconscionable conduct, and equity's capacity flexibly to shape remedy. In the context of equity, there are discernible though more subtle differences between the views of the High Court and the House of Lords. At first blush, the contrasting judicial positions that I will describe, although not polar opposites, are at least significantly at odds. In part, this is a consequence of highlighting some of the rhetoric contained in judgments in isolation from the decisions themselves. Although the differences of substance between the courts are not as stark as some of the rhetoric might suggest, nonetheless, such differences also exist, at least as a result of decisions in the last 15 years or so. I will seek to give some tentative reasons for why the different positions have developed. This interesting exercise may raise more questions than will be answered.
Citation Information
Joachim Dietrich. "Unjust enrichment versus equitable principles in England and Australia" OxfordFault Lines in Equity (2012) p. 1 - 26
Available at: