Unjust enrichment?

Crucifix

What is the status of 'unjust enrichment' under irish law? For example if standing order was left open (and thus paid out) after the cessation of a service, would the recipient be legally obligated to return the money?

seamus

If a standing order is left open and someone receives money which was not due to them, they are obliged to return the money, yes.

Jo King

They would be considered to be holding the money on a resulting trust.

Crucifix

So would something in that vein be a matter for the small claims courts, if the money wasn't refunded in a reasonable amount of time?

seamus

Since it would technically be a debt owed, I don't think the small claims court can be used for this purpose. Small claims can generally only deal with consumer issues (i.e. faulty goods, unfulfilled services) and minor property damage.

dermot_sheehan

The Small Claims Court can hear business debts cases since 2009
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0519.html

In Donal Rigney Ltd v. Empressa de (some radom name of a portugese construction partnership) two years ago Laffoy J. held that overpayment of a liquidated amount, which leads to a common law action for monies had and received does constitute a debt within the meaning of section 214 of the Companies Act.

Kosseegan

gabhain7 wrote: »

The Small Claims Court can hear business debts cases since 2009
.

but excluding any claim—


(a) arising from an agreement to which the Consumer Credit Act 1995 applies), or


(b) arising from an alleged breach of a leasing agreement, or


(c) for debt or liquidated

damages,


That is from the link you posted. Businesses can use the small claims court for disputes over the quality of goods but not for debts.
Resulting trust is an equitable concept. the District Court has no equitable jurisdiction. An action must take place in the Circuit Court.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Is there any time limit on how long the party that is out of pocket has to claim back the money?

Our man in Havana

Maya Screeching Ringleader wrote: »

Is there any time limit on how long the party that is out of pocket has to claim back the money?

6 years.

dermot_sheehan

Kosseegan wrote: »

but excluding any claim—


(a) arising from an agreement to which the Consumer Credit Act 1995 applies), or


(b) arising from an alleged breach of a leasing agreement, or


(c) for debt or liquidated

damages,

That is from the link you posted. Businesses can use the small claims court for disputes over the quality of goods but not for debts.
Resulting trust is an equitable concept. the District Court has no equitable jurisdiction. An action must take place in the Circuit Court.

Sorry I should have been clearer. The Small Claims Court can hear claims by businesses (not limited to consumers) but not business debts as you pointed out.
It can however here a consumer claim which is

“consumer small claim” means a civil proceeding instituted under this Order

(1) in relation to a consumer contract, by the consumer against the vendor in respect of any goods or service purchased, which is not a claim—

(a) arising from an agreement to which the Consumer Credit Act 1995 applies, or

(b) arising from an alleged breach of a leasing agreement,

(2) in relation to a tort, by the claimant (not being a body corporate) against the respondent in respect of minor damage caused to property belonging to the claimant but excluding personal injuries,

This would appear to encompass the liquidated claim the original poster mentioned.

An action for unjust enrichment in this circumstance is an action for monies had and received which is an action maintainable at law rather than in equity. It's an action the common law courts could have heard before the union of judicature by a writ of assumpsit.

Whether the District Court can here the claim would be depend on whether the remedy for monies had and received come within the jurisdiction of the District Court under s. 77 of the Courts Act 1924 (as amended in 1981 and 1991)

The District Court shall have and exercise all powers, jurisdictions, and authorities which immediately before the 6th day of December, 1922, were vested by statute or otherwise in Justices or a Justice of the Peace sitting at Petty Sessions and also (by way of addition and not of exception) the following jurisdictions:—

A.—In Civil Cases
(i) in contract, breach of contract, tort (except slander, libel, criminal conversation, seduction, slander of title, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment) and claims for damages unconnected with contract, where the claim does not exceed £5,000.

I'm not sure if it would come within the definition of damages unconnected with contract.