Enrichment meaning

In brief Limbu v Dyson, alleging forced labour within Dyson’s Malaysian supply network, settled before trial The proceedings posed novel issues about whether UK companies may owe a duty of care to workers in overseas supply chains The Supreme Court’s refusal of Dyson’s forum non‑convenience challenge signalled a judicial readiness to scrutinise human rights harms abroad The claim also advanced unjust enrichment, contending Dyson effectively profited from exploitation Although Dyson denies liability, the settlement signals an important acceptance of responsibility and may still deliver key outcomes pursued through strategic litigation: remedy, accountability, industry change and pressure for legislative reform What happened in Limbu v Dyson? In 2022, twenty‑four Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers issued a High Court claim against Dyson over alleged abuses while working in two Malaysian factories making components for the Dyson supply chain. After years of wrangling over forum, a January 2026 ruling that the case should be heard in the UK saw Dyson then settle....

Alaska Airlines Inc v Virgin Aviation TM Ltd and another company [2025] EWHC 2505 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The principal outcomes of Mr Justice Foxton’s analysis can be stated as follows: Where an unjust enrichment claim founded on failure of basis is invoked to stop payment of a contractual amount, the correct characterisation is that this engages the defence of circuity of action (para [49]). In that scenario, circuity of action does not mean the debt is never due; rather, it supplies a defence to liability. A broadly drafted no set off clause captures such a defence, so summary judgment can be granted (para [52]). To reach those conclusions, Foxton J reviewed a range of authorities in which no set off provisions were relied upon (see especially para [47]), and he also considered and clarified other decisions relevant to the underlying issues of principle. Accordingly, a debtor cannot avoid a summary determination merely by pointing to...

In this issue: Governance Planning Social housing Children’s social care Social care Healthcare Education Environmental law and climate change Local government finance Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Governance Equality Act 2010 provisions refer to biological sex, regardless of gender recognition certificate (For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers) The Supreme Court ruled that, within the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ denote biological sex. Treating the relevant provisions as embracing ‘certificated sex’ by virtue of a gender recognition certificate (GRC) would render them incoherent and unworkable, and thus cannot be done. For sex discrimination claims, an individual has the protected characteristic of biological sex only. The relevant parts of the EqA 2010 fall within section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004), and so displace the section 9(1) rule that a person with a GRC is, for all purposes, of the acquired...

Practice Note Use this Practice Note to identify the governing law before the courts of England and Wales for harmful events that took place between 11 January 2009 and 31 December 2020. Where incidents happened outside those dates, the UK courts will apply an alternative choice-of-law regime, and the regime engaged turns solely on the date of the occurrence. If the date falls outside that span, a different regime applies, selected by reference to timing of the event. For direction on those regimes and how they interrelate, see Practice Note: Applicable law regimes. It summarises the special rules governing particular heads of claim under Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). The topics include product liability, unfair competition and restraints on free competition, environmental harm, intellectual property (IP) rights, industrial action, unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio—i.e. agency without authority, and culpa in contrahendo—fault in forming a contract, as well as insurance...

ARCHIVED This archived Practice Note is no longer maintained and is provided for background only. Moreover, some links may not take you to the provisions as they stood on the date this Practice Note’s guidance was published. This year’s annual round-up reviews notable developments from 2017 and signals what is coming in 2018. It covers: Supreme Court rulings in BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland and Tiuta v De Villiers on recovery of loss and the assessment of damages in professional negligence claims; Supreme Court decisions in Globalia v Fulton on mitigation, and Lowick Rose v Swynson concerning unjust enrichment and transferred loss; and From the High Court, an important judgment by Coulson J in Russell v Stone on limitation standstill agreements. Reviewing 2017 Professional negligence—recovering damages and the SAAMCO principle What happened? In BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court dismissed the trustee in bankruptcy’s appeal, determining that the losses the bankrupt incurred in a...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...