Terna Energy Trading DOO v Revolut Ltd [2024] EWHC 1419 (Comm) (12 June 2024)

Terna Energy Trading DOO v Revolut Ltd [2024] EWHC 1419 (Comm) (12 June 2024)

The court held that the defendant (Revolut Ltd) was not enriched for the purposes of unjust enrichment because any funds received were immediately offset by a corresponding liability to its customer, and the funds were held in a safeguarded account not available for Revolut's general use. The minor fees earned did not constitute substantial enrichment. Therefore, the claim in unjust enrichment could not succeed as a matter of law.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1419 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: TERNA ENERGY TRADING doo; Defendant/applicant: REVOLUT LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Unjust Enrichment / Application for Reverse Summary Judgment or Strike Out
Outcome
Claim dismissed on summary judgment
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Summary Judgment, Electronic Money Institutions, Mistaken Payment, Agency Law
Commercial Law Restitution Banking and Financial Services Unjust Enrichment Summary Judgment Electronic Money Institutions Mistaken Payment Agency Law

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 5 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TERNA ENERGY TRADING doo

Claimant/respondent

REVOLUT LTD

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Unjust Enrichment / Application for Reverse Summary Judgment or Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant (Revolut Ltd) was 'enriched' for the purposes of unjust enrichment
  2. 2 Whether any enrichment was 'at the expense of' the claimant (Terna Energy Trading doo)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant (Revolut Ltd) was not enriched for the purposes of unjust enrichment because any funds received were immediately offset by a corresponding liability to its customer, and the funds were held in a safeguarded account not available for Revolut's general use. The minor fees earned did not constitute substantial enrichment. Therefore, the claim in unjust enrichment could not succeed as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on summary judgment

Orders

  • Reverse summary judgment granted in favour of the defendant
  • Claim struck out