WENDY ANN JONES AND CLIFFORD WALTER JONES AGAINST STEVEN MUIR AND SAMANTHA MUIR [2015] ScotSC 18 (10 March 2015)

WENDY ANN JONES AND CLIFFORD WALTER JONES AGAINST STEVEN MUIR AND SAMANTHA MUIR [2015] ScotSC 18 (10 March 2015)

The principle of unjustified enrichment does not apply because the pursuers' expenditure was in their own interest for their right of occupation, and any benefit to the defenders was incidental. The contract provided for the pursuers' occupation, and their voluntary departure did not render the defenders' retention of the property unjustified. The sheriff's findings on the facts and law were correct and should not be disturbed.

Citation
[2015] ScotSC 18
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Wendy Ann Jones; Pursuer and Appellant: Clifford Walter Jones; Defender and Respondent: Steven Muir; Defender and Respondent: Samantha Muir
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Unjustified Enrichment, Contract Law, Family Arrangements, Property Law
Civil Law Unjustified Enrichment Contract Law Family Arrangements Property 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy Ann Jones

Pursuer and Appellant

Clifford Walter Jones

Pursuer and Appellant

Steven Muir

Defender and Respondent

Samantha Muir

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were unjustly enriched by the pursuers' expenditure on building a bungalow on the defenders' land
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers are entitled to recompense for the value of the bungalow under the principle of unjustified enrichment

Ratio Decidendi

The principle of unjustified enrichment does not apply because the pursuers' expenditure was in their own interest for their right of occupation, and any benefit to the defenders was incidental. The contract provided for the pursuers' occupation, and their voluntary departure did not render the defenders' retention of the property unjustified. The sheriff's findings on the facts and law were correct and should not be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Adheres to the interlocutor of the sheriff
  • Finds the appellants as assisted persons liable to the respondents in the expenses of the appeal