PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 1 (2025) – (827757) DUE 13 MARCH 2025

PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 –
SEMESTER 1 (2025) – (827757)
DUE 13 MARCH 2025

, PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 –
SEMESTER 1 (2025) – (827757)
DUE 13 MARCH 2025
QUESTION 1 Discuss (by reference to
relevant case law) the requirement that the
enrichment must have been sine causa.
The Latin term sine causa translates to “without cause.” In legal
terms, it means that there must be no valid legal ground or
justification (such as a contract, statutory obligation, or lawful gift)
for the enrichment received. If there is a lawful reason or justification
(iusta causa), then the enrichment is not unjust, and restitution will
not be granted.


Key Elements to Prove

To claim unjust enrichment, the claimant must typically prove:

1. That the defendant was enriched,
2. That the claimant suffered a corresponding impoverishment,
3. That the enrichment was at the expense of the claimant,
4. That the enrichment was sine causa (unjust or without legal
justification).


Relevant Case Law

Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue
Commissioners [1993] AC 70

This House of Lords case emphasized that enrichment must lack legal
justification. Here, Woolwich paid taxes that were later found to have