Lampson (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [No 3]

In the case of Lampson (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [No 3], the dispute centred on the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment against the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover funds mistakenly transferred to the defendant's bank account. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiff's claim was properly framed and if certain paragraphs of the statement of claim should be struck out. The plaintiff was granted one opportunity to re-plead the statement of claim, and the court examined the nature of the claim for unjust enrichment and its relationship with common counts of forms of action. Furthermore, the court considered whether Australian law recognises or might recognise an unjust factor of free acceptance and the elements of a plea of failure of consideration when an anticipated contract fails to materialise.

The court began by analysing the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, particularly focusing on the requirement of a benefit conferred on the defendant at the plaintiff's expense. The court noted that the plaintiff's claim was based on the mistaken transfer of funds, which constituted a benefit to the defendant. However, the court also highlighted that the plaintiff needed to demonstrate that the defendant was unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense. The court further examined the relationship between unjust enrichment and common counts of forms of action, such as the count of money had and received, and considered whether the plaintiff's claim could be framed in those terms. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was indeed one of unjust enrichment, as it involved the defendant receiving a benefit at the plaintiff's expense without any valid justification.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised that the plaintiff's claim should be based on the principles of unjust enrichment rather than the common counts of forms of action. The court also considered the possibility of an unjust factor of free acceptance, which would require the defendant to have requested or accepted the benefit. However, the court found that the plaintiff's claim did not rely on this factor, as the focus was on the mistaken transfer of funds. The court further noted that the plaintiff's claim was not based on a failure of consideration, as the transfer of funds had already occurred. The court ultimately decided that the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment was properly framed and that the paragraphs of the statement of claim that were struck out did not need to be re-pleaded, as they were surplus to the requirements of the claim.

The Federal Court of Australia granted the plaintiff one opportunity to re-plead the statement of claim, with the understanding that the claim should be based on the principles of unjust enrichment. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's claim was not based on a failure of consideration or the unjust factor of free acceptance. The court also noted that the claim could not be framed in terms of the common counts of forms of action, such as money had and received. The plaintiff was directed to re-plead the statement of claim, ensuring that it was properly framed in accordance with the principles of unjust enrichment.