Jones v Churcher & Anor [2009] EWHC 722 (QB) (18 March 2009)

Jones v Churcher & Anor [2009] EWHC 722 (QB) (18 March 2009)

The payment of £42,300 was made under a mistake and not for good consideration. The first defendant did not change position in good faith, as she parted with the money knowing the circumstances were suspicious and made no adequate inquiry or effort to return it. The second defendant's defence of ministerial receipt fails as it did not act merely as a ministerial agent and could not rely on change of position. Restitution is ordered.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 722 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen John Edmond Jones; First Defendant: Kelly Churcher; Second Defendant: Abbey National PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Mistaken Payment, Change of Position Defence, Ministerial Receipt, Unjust Enrichment
Restitution Banking Law Mistake Mistaken Payment Change of Position Defence Ministerial Receipt Unjust Enrichment

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Edmond Jones

Claimant

Kelly Churcher

First Defendant

Abbey National PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payment of £42,300 to the first defendant was made under a mistake
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have a valid defence to restitution based on change of position or ministerial receipt
  3. 3 Whether the payment was made for good consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The payment of £42,300 was made under a mistake and not for good consideration. The first defendant did not change position in good faith, as she parted with the money knowing the circumstances were suspicious and made no adequate inquiry or effort to return it. The second defendant's defence of ministerial receipt fails as it did not act merely as a ministerial agent and could not rely on change of position. Restitution is ordered.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • First defendant to repay £42,300 to the claimant
  • Second defendant not liable for restitution