Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon

This case concerns a dispute between the Baltic Shipping Company and a passenger, Ms. Dillon, regarding the recovery of a fare paid for a cruise. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Ms. Dillon was entitled to restitution of her fare, and if so, on what grounds. Specifically, the court had to consider whether there had been a total failure of consideration, and whether the contract for carriage was an "entire contract" such that partial performance did not entitle the provider to payment.

The court was presented with arguments that the foundation of restitution lies in unjust enrichment, as articulated in cases such as *Pavey and Matthews v Paul*. It was also argued that contracts for services, including contracts of carriage, ordinarily sound in damages for breach rather than restitution. An exception to this general rule arises where there is an entire contract, meaning no benefit is conferred unless the contract is fully performed, or where there is a total failure of consideration. The court was invited to consider whether the present case fell within these exceptions, with submissions made that the contract was not an entire one and that there had not been a total failure of consideration, given that the "very idea of travel" involved continuous movement rather than merely arrival at a destination.