Miraki v Griffith

Miraki (the appellant) sought to recover money paid to Griffith (the respondent) for goods that were never delivered. The dispute concerned whether the respondent was personally liable to make restitution for the prepayment. The appeal was heard by Bell P, Payne and McCallum JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent was liable to make restitution to the appellant for the prepayment made for undelivered goods, notwithstanding that the primary judge had found that the respondent’s father controlled the bank account into which the funds were paid and ultimately benefited from them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's finding that the respondent had directed the appellant to pay the funds into an account in the respondent's name. However, the Court agreed with the primary judge's conclusion that the respondent was not personally liable to make restitution. The Court reasoned that the respondent had acted as an agent for his father in receiving the payment, and that the father had retained control of the funds and obtained the benefit of them. Therefore, the respondent had not been unjustly enriched.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.