Subrogation, Equity and Unjust Enrichment
University of Sydney - Faculty of Law
FAULT LINES IN EQUITY, J. Glister and P. Ridge, eds., Hart Publishing: Oxford, pp. 27-43, 2012
Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 12/52
Is “unjust enrichment” merely a unifying theme, or is it something more, a legal norm in its own right capable of supplying answers to particular cases? Or, if that is a false distinction, and indeed “unjust enrichment” may be either, then what approach is more likely to result in a legal system whose operation is clear, certain and coherent? This paper is directed to those questions. It notes the highly divergent approaches to a single doctrine – subrogation – in the House of Lords and the High Court of Australia, with a view to evaluating which mode of reasoning leads to clarity, transparency and coherence.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 15
Keywords: subrogation, unjust enrichment, equity, Bofinger, Banque Financiere, Birks, Burrows, taxonomy, rationality
JEL Classification: K10, K30Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 7, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.500 seconds