Miraki v Griffith [2021] NSWCA 263

Miraki v Griffith [2021] NSWCA 263

Joshua Griffith was not liable in restitution as he did not appropriate the payments to his own benefit but acted under his father's control as a mere conduit; thus, he was not unjustly enriched by the payments, whether made into his account or directed at his request. The appeal was dismissed for lack of benefit to Joshua from the payments and no error by the primary judge in confining the claim to three payments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['unjust Enrichment' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'restitutionary Remedies' 'minors (property and Contracts)' 'business Agency and Liability']
['restitution' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['unjust Enrichment' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'restitutionary Remedies' 'minors (property and Contracts)' 'business Agency and Liability']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Joshua Griffith obtained a benefit from payments made so as to be liable to make restitution' 'Whether the primary judge erred in not permitting the appellant to run her pleaded case concerning the fourth payment' 'Whether the appellant was entitled to restitution of amounts paid by a company (Barton Contractors)']

Ratio Decidendi

Joshua Griffith was not liable in restitution as he did not appropriate the payments to his own benefit but acted under his father's control as a mere conduit; thus, he was not unjustly enriched by the payments, whether made into his account or directed at his request. The appeal was dismissed for lack of benefit to Joshua from the payments and no error by the primary judge in confining the claim to three payments.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed' "Appellant to pay respondent's costs"]