High Court of Australia – Restitution – Restitution of benefits derived from unenforceable or illegal contracts – Recovery of money paid as money had and received – Respondents invested in tax driven blueberry farming schemes – Respondents borrowed funds to pay farm management fees – Each investment a ‘prescribed interest’ under Companies Code of each respondent’s home State (‘Code’) – Contrary to s 170(1) of Code, no valid prospectus registered when prescribed interests offered – Farming schemes collapsed – Respondents did not repay loan funds – Loan agreements unenforceable against respondents due to illegality – Whether restitution of loan funds available – Whether failure of consideration – Whether respondents’ retention of loan funds unjust.
Personal property – Alienation of personal property – Assignment of choses in action – Assignment of right to restitution – Deed of assignment included assignment of legal right to debts and ‘all legal and other remedies’ – Whether right to restitution capable of assignment – Whether deed of assignment assigned right to restitution.
Where the right to restitution is assigned the claimant stands in the shoes of the assignor, and is therefore treated as if he had been a party to the relevant transaction, and the defendant’s enrichment had been directly at his expense.
Judges:
French CJ
Citations:
[2012] HCA 7, 246 CLR 498, 86 AJLR 296
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies SC 11-Apr-2017
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.640871
