“Unjust enrichment recognized as independent cause of action requiring restitution subject to defenses.”
A solicitor fraudulently used client money from his firm's account to gamble at the Playboy Club. The firm sued the club to recover the money on unjust enrichment grounds.
Whether unjust enrichment constitutes an independent cause of action and what defenses are available to recipients of stolen money.
The House of Lords held the club liable in unjust enrichment but reduced the award by the amount of the firm's winnings, applying the defense of change of position.
Landmark recognition of unjust enrichment as independent cause of action in English law. Established foundational principles and defenses still applied today.
You're reading the free summary of Unjust Enrichment — Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.