Stephen Barratt, instructed by Lauren Sayer at Thompson & Jackson, has successfully defended a private residential landlord in an action based on unjust enrichment.
The matter began as a possession claim, which was defended on the basis of proprietary estoppel. The Defendants counterclaimed alternatively to recover the value of works to the property they said they had undertaken at their expense and by which they argued the Claimant had been unjustly enriched.
Following a one-day trial in Barnstaple County Court, the Judge found no promise sufficient to give rise to an estoppel and no ‘free acceptance’ by the Claimant of any benefit. The works, the Judge found(rejecting the Defendants’ evidence on this issue), had been carried out without the Claimant’s prior knowledge, so she neither knew or ought to have known that the Defendants expected payment, and nor did she ever have the opportunity to reject them. The restitutionary claim therefore failed because there was no 'unjust factor' justifying recovery of the benefits conferred.
The Judge was referred to the recent consideration of freeacceptance as a free-standing unjust factor by HHJ Matthews in Roger v Wills[2025] EWHC 1367, a complex and much debated principle that nonetheless wasstraightforward to apply in this case.
Stephen continues to develop his civil practice in property andother areas. If you would like to instruct Stephen you can contact civilclerks@kbgchambers.co.uk.
