RELYING ON IGNORANCE AS A GROUND OF RESTITUTION

Exceptionally, it might, however, be possible for the claimant to bring a restitutionary claim founded on unjust enrichment where the ground of restitution is ignorance, in circumstances where the claimant is not able to bring a claim founded on the vindication of proprietary rights.

(A) SERVICES PROVIDED IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF IGNORANCE

In principle, if the claimant has provided a service to the defendant which constitutes an enrichment and it can be shown that the claimant was ignorant that the service was provided, the claimant should be able to bring a restitutionary claim founded on the reversal of the defendant’s unjust enrichment. In such a case a claim founded on the vindication of property rights is out of the question, simply because there is no proprietary interest in the provision of a service. It would, however, be possible to establish that the defendant had been unjustly enriched at the expense of the claimant. Usually, a claimant will be aware that a service has been provided, but there will be some circumstances where the ignorant provision of a service could be established. For example, the defendant may have entered the claimant’s theatre without paying and seen a play being performed. Or the claimant may have been discussing confidential research with a colleague which the defendant overheard and exploited commercially. As long as it can be shown in each of these cases that the defendant had received an enrichment,^[1] it would be possible to establish that the defendant has been unjustly enriched, at the expense of the claimant who was ignorant of the fact that the defendant had received the benefit.

• [1] SeeChapter4. 2 See Chapter19.