Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

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

15 Pages Posted: 7 Aug 2012  

Mark Leeming

The University of Sydney Law School

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.

Keywords: subrogation, unjust enrichment, equity, Bofinger, Banque Financiere, Birks, Burrows, taxonomy, rationality

JEL Classification: K10, K30

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2125580

Mark Leeming (Contact Author)

The University of Sydney Law School ( email )

New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

Paper statistics

Downloads
306
Rank
81,818
Abstract Views
2,099