Solution
Tanmoy answered on
Aug 26 2021
Irish and EU Law – Principle of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment
Introduction
The word ‘Restitution’ in a contract means restoring the benefits for the victims, also known as the plaintiff to the original situation which he relished prior to entering the contract. Also, as per this law it is a process to prevent unjust enrichment of the defendant. As per this law the wrongdoing of the defendant and making unjust gains which he is not authorized to can be prevented (Rishabh Soni, 2019). On the contrary, the restitution law in Ireland resembles to that of the English law. Although it is quite similar to the English law but contains various conventional and unwa
anted factor models. Also, as the jurisdiction of Ireland is small, hence there are few cases of restitution which can be highlighted in the essay. The first restitution law was applicable in the year 1960s with the comprehensive application of the laws against the permission of restitution against mistakes as in the case of National Bank v O’Connor (1966) 103 ILTR 73 and the principle of unjust enrichment East Cork Foods v O’Dwyer Steel Co Ltd [1978] 1 IR 103. Further, the restitution law was applicable against unlawful or overpaid taxes as in the case of Dolan v Neligan [1967] 1 IR 247.
Therefore, restitution is the solution or remedy which is allowed by the court of law to the plaintiff where there has been a case of unjust enrichment of the defendant. In most of these cases of restitution the unjustly enriched party is being ordered to pay a sum equivalent to the amount he is enriched with. The ultimate purpose of the restitution is to put back the position where certain representations were not being made.
But question arises if restitution and compensation are the same or not. These two terms are almost similar but the difference is with respect to the monetary award. In compensation it is calculated based on the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff whereas in the case of the defendant it is calculated on the amount of gains the defendant has earned (Rishabh Soni, 2019). We will analyse the paper based on the various cases of restitution as per Irish laws.
Analysis
In the past restitution was being observed as the law of contract. In United Kingdom and Ireland, the law of restitution was based on the concept of unjust enrichment. The first Irish case which was being held as an action against unjust enrichment was the famous case law of Dublin Corporation v Building and Allied Trade Union. As per this case we find that the plaintiff lost the case in Supreme Court. It was Dublin Corporation which needed a part of the Bricklayer’s Hall where the Bricklayer’s Guild was established for the purpose of widening of road. The Corporation also wanted to purchase the road at a cost of £87857. But, if the Dublin Corporation would purchase the part of the site of the Bricklayer’s Hall, then the Bricklayer’s authorities would have lost a fine cut stone façade. On the other hand, the Bricklayer’s Hall authority offered the Corporation that they would charge an amount of £224414 for removing, restoring and reinstating the façade on the remaining portion of the hall post the road is widened. In order to decide this issue, the case was dragged to the court of law. It was the bona fide intent of the Bricklayer’s Guild to reinstate the facade as well as retain the land on which the hall is situated. Suddenly, the Guild destroyed and demolished both the hall along with the façade. They also informed the Corporation for re-construction of the pertinent façade portion of the hall and claimed £224414. Hence, since the building was demolished, it was impossible to reinstate the façade of the Bricklayer Hall. On the other hand, the Guild retained the entire amount of £224414 with them without edifying the façade of Bricklayer Hall. This was observed by the Dublin Corporation who claimed in the court of law that the entire amount of £224414 was retained by Bricklayer Hall authorities without restating the hall’s façade and was hence a case of unjust enrichment on the part of the Guild to the amount of £136557. The amount of £136557 was the amount of reinstatement cost which was calculated by subtracting the amount cited by Dublin Corporation to the amount of £87857 from the amount paid to Bricklayer Guild amounting to £224414. The Dublin Corporation sought for the restitution of the amount of £136557. The Dublin Corporation’s claim was first heard in the High Court before Budd J. They won the claim and was able to prove the Bricklayer Guild to be a beneficiary of unjust gains but when the case was dragged to the Supreme Court, they failed to prove this fact. Although in this case it was proved that the principle against unjust enrichment is a part of the Irish law yet it was due to the doctrine of res judicata which protected the Guild from being held the beneficiary of being unjustly enriched at the cost of the Dublin Corporation (L.Q.R, 1997). Therefore, the a
itration process allowed the defendant, in this case the Bricklayer Guild, compensation which was able to cover the cost of repairing the façade of the Bricklayer Hall.
As per Irish law the principle of unjust enrichment can be stated to be not fully rational. Further, there are few instances where the restitution can be entitled for unjust enrichment. It is only when mistakes occur in a contract when restitution is provided. Also, these mistakes will be of very minor categories and which will harm the contract. Traditionally, the mistake needed to be fundamental in order to implement the restitution law into force, allow the nullification of the contract and claim for recovery. In Ireland, the traditional rule that the recovery may not happen if there is an e
or in the law is still applicable. Whereas in UK, the rule has been reversed. As per the Irish law it is illustrated that if a person takes the liability of an e
or as per the terms of the agreement, then there is...