A sum had been paid into court in 1997. Other sums were paid out, but this sum was left against costs liability. It was discovered much laterand paid out to the claimant. The former defendant now said that it had been paid out twice, and alleged dishonesty.
Held: The allegation of dishonesty was not well founded and should not have been made. Unjust enrichment was not made without proof of knowledge which was clearly not present here. However the court order in the defendant’s favour was administrative in nature, and the defendant could not rely upon it.
 EWHC 3714 (QB)
England and Wales
Vexing legal scholars – Moses v Macferlan KBD 1760
An action for money had and received will only lie where it is inequitable for the defendant to retain the money. The defendant in an action for money had and received ‘can be liable no further than the money he has received’. . .
Cited – Marriott v Hampton KBD 1775
The plaintiff paid for goods bought from the defendant. The defendant then brought an action for payment of the price alleging that he had not been paid. The claimant could not find his receipt for the first payment, and was ordered by the court to . .
Cited – Don Nuno Alvares Pereira De Mello, Duke Of Cadaval, v Thomas Collins 27-Apr-1836
Piaintiff being a foreigner, ignorant of the English language, was arrested at Falmouth soon after his first arrival there from abroad, by defendant, for 10,0001. Defendant and plaintiff then signed an agreement, by which, in consideration of 5001. . .
Cited – Wilson v Ray 1-May-1839
Lord Denman CJ descirbed the pronciple establishedin Marriott: .that what a party recovers from another by legal process, without fraud, the loser shall never recover back by virtue of any facts which could have availed him in the former proceeding. . .
Cited – Derry v Peek HL 1-Jul-1889
The House heard an action for damages for deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: The court set out the requirements for fraud, saying that fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly or without . .
Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.518504