Restitution meaning

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Injunctions Enforcement Litigation New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts No Weekly Highlights on 24 April 2025 Key DR developments Artificial intelligence CTJ issues refreshed AI guidance and unveils Copilot Chat for judges: The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CTJ) has released updated guidance on the use of artificial intelligence, replacing the December 2023 version. The revision widens the glossary of AI terminology and introduces fresh sections on misinformation, bias, and the quality of datasets. It also brings Microsoft Copilot Chat to judicial office holders via eJudiciary accounts, and confirms that litigants are accountable for AI-generated material put before the courts. For further detail, see: LNB News 15/04/2025 23—Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes updated AI guidance and introduces Copilot Chat for judges...

Dowman Imports Limited v 2 Toobz Limited [2020] EWHC 291 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Unjust enrichment This ruling affirms and refines the approach to restitutionary claims when services are supplied in anticipation of a contract being finalised: Four core questions must be addressed: has the defendant obtained a benefit? was that benefit gained at the claimant’s expense? was the enrichment unjust? are any defences available? If those questions are answered in the claimant’s favour, the court will determine the value of the unjust enrichment by objectively assessing the market value or price of the services, akin to a quantum meruit. The defendant might try to show that they personally valued the services below market rate (subjective devaluation) to cut down or defeat the claim. That attempt fails if the claimant proves either that: the benefit was incontrovertible; or the defendant requested or freely accepted the benefit ...

Share your insights here The German Federal Ministry of Justice (Bundesjustizministerium) has unveiled a draft bill to update the arbitration provisions in the German Civil Procedure Code (ZPO). This represents the first thorough revision since 1998, after the 2024 effort failed when the then administration ended prematurely. Drawing on the 2024 public consultation, the proposal responds to central criticisms and primarily seeks to boost Germany’s appeal as a seat of arbitration. The key developments and their practical significance are set out below. Form of the arbitration agreement According to the revised Section 1031(1) ZPO, an arbitration agreement will be valid if it is made or recorded in writing, or via any medium that permits later access to the information. The rule is further modernised by removing outdated references, including to “telegrams”, and adopting a technology-neutral approach. This aligns with Option 1 in Article 7 of the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this respect, the new draft substantially diverges from the 2024 version, which would have dispensed with...

Overview This Practice Note forms part of our LLB Contract Law series for law students. It surveys the remedies for breach of contract, with damages at the heart of the common law response. Setting remedies within the framework of contract, it explains when a party may terminate—most notably for breach of conditions and of innominate (or ‘intermediate’) terms. It then sets out the expectation principle from Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, stressing that an award should put the claimant in the position they would have been in had performance occurred. The Note next traces the principal constraints on recovery—causation, remoteness, and the duty to mitigate—and discusses leading cases on mitigation to show how these limits operate even once breach is proved. It also considers alternative measures—expectation, reliance and, in rare cases, restitutionary recovery—before addressing quantification, including the contrast between ‘difference in value’ and ‘cost of cure’ illustrated by Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344. Finally, it deals with non-pecuniary loss and the contemporary approach to liquidated...

This Practice Note explores the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) to seek court-ordered restitution under section 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). It further addresses the FCA’s ability to obtain a court restitution order for market abuse under section 383. It also reviews the administrative powers of the FCA, PRA and the Bank of England in relation to financial market infrastructures (FMIs) to compel restitution on their own initiative under section 384. The Note explains how these powers are used in practice, offers examples, and summarises relevant case law. It reflects updates to the FCA’s Enforcement Guide (ENFG), which replaced the former Enforcement Guide (EG) for investigations opened on or after 3 June 2025, and cross-refers to legacy guidance in EG 11 for earlier investigations. Unless otherwise stated, statutory references to sections are to FSMA 2000. Key points The FCA’s enforcement strategy prioritises delivering redress to consumers who have suffered loss; in 2024/2025...

Introduction This Practice Note is part of our LLB Contract Law suite, aimed at students. In contract law, a vitiating factor is something that damages the legal validity of the consent needed for a binding agreement. One such factor is misrepresentation, where one party makes a false statement to another. This Practice Note outlines misrepresentation in English contract law, showing how inaccurate pre-contract statements undermine real consent and render contracts voidable rather than void. It sets out the elements of an actionable claim (a false statement of fact or law, inducement and attribution), separates fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation, and reviews the key cases alongside the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Particular emphasis is placed on remedies, especially rescission and damages, and on the equitable bars to rescission (affirmation, lapse of time, impossibility of restitution, third-party rights and judicial discretion). Throughout, it brings together judicial reasoning, policy considerations and exam-focused guidance, illustrating how modern case law balances fairness to the misled party with certainty in commercial transactions. Overview Definition and...

[ To appear on the claimant’s solicitors’ headed notepaper ] Our ref: [ insert your file reference for this matter ] FAO [ RELEVANT NAME ] [ NAME OF PROPOSED DEFENDANT’S SOLICITORS, IF ANY ] [ ADDRESS LINE 1 ] [ ADDRESS LINE 2 ] [ POSTCODE ] [ DATE ] Dear [ insert name ] RE [ PROSPECTIVE CLAIMANT’S NAME ] AND [ PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT’S NAME ] LETTER OF CLAIM [ Further to our correspondence dated [ insert date of previous correspondence, if any ] ]. We represent [ insert client’s full name ], of [ insert full address ]. This document is our client’s letter of claim, issued in line with the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols under the Civil Procedure Rules (the Practice Direction). For ease, a copy is enclosed. Please note the closing section of this letter sets out the timeframe for your reply and the ramifications of not providing a proper response within...