Mathiot v Rose (SCA 37 of 2013) [2016] SCCA 9 (22 April 2016)

Mathiot v Rose (SCA 37 of 2013) [2016] SCCA 9 (22 April 2016)

The quantum for unjust enrichment should be based on the value of the enrichment at the time the claim is filed, not merely the claimant's historical contributions, and the trial judge did not err in awarding 30% of the market value as established by the sale price.

Citation
[2016] SCCA 9
Parties
Appellant: Barry Mathiot; Respondent: Bradline Rose
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Case Number
SCA 37 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Property Rights, Concubinage, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
English
Civil Law Unjust Enrichment Property Rights Concubinage Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

Barry Mathiot

Appellant

Bradline Rose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in calculating unjust enrichment based on asset value rather than actual contribution
  2. 2 Whether principles of matrimonial property division were wrongly applied
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's contribution was limited to specific sums

Ratio Decidendi

The quantum for unjust enrichment should be based on the value of the enrichment at the time the claim is filed, not merely the claimant's historical contributions, and the trial judge did not err in awarding 30% of the market value as established by the sale price.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondent SRs 225,000 with interest and costs