Conclusions
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, primarily because the mistake in this case was not causative of the defendants’ payment of rent when it was not required to be paid, but also because it is not unjust for the claimants to retain such rent, and also because we should not grant restitution when the contract subsists and no damage has been sustained even assuming a breach of contract, the counterclaims of all three defendants fail and are dismissed.
- Heading
- The Hon. Mr Justice Griffiths and His Honour Judge Jarman KC
- ISSUE 1 - DID THE DEFENDANTS PAY RENT BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE OF LAW?
- The undisputed facts
- The evidence
- Evidence on behalf of the claimants and Welsh Government
- The evidence of the defendants
- The evidence of Mrs Mitchell
- The evidence of Ms Helen Jones
- The evidence of Mr William Wadley
- Conclusion on the evidence
- ISSUE 2 - WERE THE CLAIMANTS UNJUSTLY ENRICHED AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENDANTS’ MISTAKE?
- ISSUE 3 - IS A CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANTS IN ANY EVENT, GIVEN THAT THERE IS A SUBSISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM AND THE CLAIMANT LANDLORDS?
- ISSUES 4, 5 AND 6
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 2477 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)