English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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  SurreyCountyCouncil 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.

oxford university commonwealth law journal

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