This article seeks to defend the law of unjust enrichment against the recent influential attacks of Robert Stevens (“The Unjust Enrichment Disaster” (2018) 134 LQR 574) and Lionel Smith (“Restitution: A New Start?” in Devonshire and Havelock, The Impact of Equity and Restitution in Commerce (2018), ch. 5). A central argument here put forward is that there is a law of unjust enrichment, embodying a cause of action in unjust enrichment, which unites what Stevens and Smith see as disparate categories. A linked but separate argument is that, within the central area of unjust enrichment, Stevens is incorrect to regard the defendant's acceptance of performance as being necessary to trigger restitution albeit that acceptance may be relevant in establishing that the defendant has been enriched. A further, and more specific, argument is that, with great respect, the overruling, as a matter of principle, of Sempra Metals Ltd. v IRC [2007] UKHL 34, [2008] 1 A.C. 561, by the Supreme Court in Prudential Assurance Ltd. v HMRC [2018] UKSC 39, [2018] 3 WLR 652, seems unfortunate and appears to have been influenced by Stevens's excessively narrow approach to the meaning of “at the expense of”.

中文翻译：

---

为不公正的致富辩护

本文旨在捍卫不当得利法，以对抗最近对罗伯特·史蒂文斯（“不当得利灾难”（2018）134 LQR 574）和莱昂内尔·史密斯（“归还：新的开始？”在德文郡和哈夫洛克，公平和赔偿对商业的影响（2018 年），第。5）。这里提出的一个核心论点是，有一条不当得利的法律，体现了不当得利的行动原因，它将史蒂文斯和史密斯视为不同的类别统一起来。一个相关但独立的论点是，在不当得利的核心领域内，史蒂文斯认为被告接受履行是触发恢复原状的必要条件是不正确的，尽管接受可能与确定被告人已致富有关。另一个更具体的论点是，在非常尊重的情况下，原则上推翻Sempra Metals Ltd. 诉 IRC[2007] UKHL 34, [2008] 1 AC 561，由最高法院在Prudential Assurance Ltd. 诉 HMRC[2018] UKSC 39, [2018] 3 WLR 652 似乎很不幸，并且似乎受到了史蒂文斯对“以牺牲为代价”含义的过于狭隘的态度的影响。