Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) and the relationship between unjust enrichment and public bodies

Zamir R. Golestani
{"title":"Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) and the relationship between unjust enrichment and public bodies","authors":"Zamir R. Golestani","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2022.2058213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In both tort and contract, the addition of a public body as a party to proceedings typically superimposes complex, policy-based considerations onto a given claim. This premise remains true in the context of a claim concerning restitution for unjust enrichment. The recent case of Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) concerned a successful unjust enrichment claim by one public body against another to recover costs of specialist care for an autistic man which, although statutorily required, were not provided. The facts of the case and its decision provide fertile ground to explore the complexities that arise in an unjust enrichment claim where a public body is party to the proceedings. In particular, the reasoning of Thornton J encourages analysis of the policy-based reasons for restitution and the utility of the change of position defence in the context of an unjust enrichment claim against public bodies.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2058213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In both tort and contract, the addition of a public body as a party to proceedings typically superimposes complex, policy-based considerations onto a given claim. This premise remains true in the context of a claim concerning restitution for unjust enrichment. The recent case of Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) concerned a successful unjust enrichment claim by one public body against another to recover costs of specialist care for an autistic man which, although statutorily required, were not provided. The facts of the case and its decision provide fertile ground to explore the complexities that arise in an unjust enrichment claim where a public body is party to the proceedings. In particular, the reasoning of Thornton J encourages analysis of the policy-based reasons for restitution and the utility of the change of position defence in the context of an unjust enrichment claim against public bodies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
萨里郡议会诉NHS林肯郡临床调试组[2020]EWHC 3550 (QB)以及不当得利与公共机构之间的关系
摘要在侵权行为和合同中,增加公共机构作为诉讼当事人通常会将复杂的、基于政策的考虑叠加到特定的索赔上。这一前提在涉及不当得利赔偿要求的情况下仍然成立。最近的萨里县议会诉英国国家医疗服务体系林肯郡【2020】EWHC 3550(QB)一案涉及一个公共机构对另一个机构成功的不当得利索赔,以收回一名自闭症男子的专科护理费用,尽管法律要求,但该费用并未提供。该案的事实及其裁决为探索公共机构参与诉讼的不当得利索赔中出现的复杂性提供了肥沃的土壤。特别是,Thornton J的推理鼓励分析基于政策的归还理由,以及在针对公共机构的不当得利索赔中改变立场辩护的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1