Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2125580
 


 



Subrogation, Equity and Unjust Enrichment


Mark Leeming


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

Abstract:     
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, K30

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: August 7, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Leeming, Mark, Subrogation, Equity and Unjust Enrichment. 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. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2125580

Contact Information

Mark Leeming (Contact Author)
University of Sydney - Faculty of Law ( email )
Faculty of Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,573
Downloads: 206
Download Rank: 88,688

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.359 seconds