Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Where does Barton v Morris leave the law of unjust enrichment in relation to payment for services provided under a contract?
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
A majority decision of the UK Supreme Court, Barton v Morris [2023] UKSC 3, handed down in January this year confirmed the existence of the subsisting contract rule, the effect of which is that where services are provided under a valid contract no claim to payment will generally lie in unjust enrichment, the parties’ rights and obligations being limited to those provided for by the contract.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
