CL-2018-000297, CL-2018-000404, CL-2018-000590, - [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

SKAT submitted that in the cases of a payment made by the claimant, if the defendant’s alleged unjust enrichment did not come through the receipt by them or their agent, from the claimant, of that pay

41.

SKAT submitted that in the cases of a payment made by the claimant, if the defendant’s alleged unjust enrichment did not come through the receipt by them or their agent, from the claimant, of that payment, the enrichment might still be considered to have been at the expense of the claimant, under ITC, if:

(i)

what the defendant (or their agent) received was part of a coordinated transfer as contemplated by Lord Reed in ITC, at [48], [61], i.e. “a set of related transactions, operating in a coordinated way, as forming a single scheme or transaction, on the basis that to answer the question by considering each of the individual transactions separately would be unrealistic”. Examples are Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221, as explained in ITC at [61]-[66], and Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd [2015] UKSC 66, [2016] AC 176; or

(ii)

the defendant (or their agent) received a payment or other asset “into which the claimant can trace an interest. Since the property is, in law, the equivalent of the claimant’s property, the defendant is therefore treated as if he had received the claimant’s property” (ibid, at [48]).