Sandher v Pearson [2013] EWCA Civ 1822 (28 November 2013)

Sandher v Pearson [2013] EWCA Civ 1822 (28 November 2013)

Mrs Pearson was not entitled to subrogation or restitution because the transaction was governed by a contract under which she agreed to clear all charges and restrictions, and there was no basis to set aside the contract for unconscionability or other equitable grounds. The court cannot disregard the terms of a contract in unjust enrichment claims unless the contract can be set aside.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1822
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Jatinder Sandher; Appellant/defendant: Janet Pearson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Subrogation, Unconscionable Bargain, Remedies, Contractual Interpretation
Equity Property Law Restitution Unjust Enrichment Subrogation Unconscionable Bargain Remedies Contractual Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jatinder Sandher

Respondent/claimant

Janet Pearson

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Sandher was unjustly enriched at Mrs Pearson's expense by the repayment of Hedge Capital's charge from the sale proceeds
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Pearson is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of Hedge Capital
  3. 3 Whether the transaction constituted an unconscionable bargain

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Pearson was not entitled to subrogation or restitution because the transaction was governed by a contract under which she agreed to clear all charges and restrictions, and there was no basis to set aside the contract for unconscionability or other equitable grounds. The court cannot disregard the terms of a contract in unjust enrichment claims unless the contract can be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed