(ii) No Unifying Principle of Unjust Enrichment

An alternative critique of the unjust enrichment principle is that it is of little or no utility to our understanding of when restitutionary remedies will be awarded.⁵² This is both because unjust enrichment is not sufficiently recognized by the courts and also because the principle is artificial in bringing together disparate areas of the law which are not sufficiently similar, so that it is not possible to identify a coherent independent body of law founded on the reversal of the defendant’s unjust enrichment. This rejection of the unjust enrichment principle can itself be rejected on two grounds. First, because the principle has now been explicitly recognized in a number of decisions of the House of Lords and the Supreme Court.⁵³ Secondly, because the unjust enrichment principle does indeed have an important, but not a universal, function in explaining when restitutionary remedies can be awarded. It is a principle which explains earlier cases and can be used to predict results in future cases. It also enables disparate areas of the law to be brought together. The proof of the usefulness of the unjust enrichment principle will be found in the remaining chapters of this Part.