EW Barker Centre for Law & Business hosts symposium on Unjust Enrichment

On 21 August 2025, the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business convened a symposium examining contemporary issues in the law of restitution and unjust enrichment. The event, moderated by Professor Steven Elliott KC, gathered faculty members, researchers, students and practitioners for a stimulating evening of legal debate.

The symposium opened with Dr KV Krishnaprasad, who presented ideas developed in his new book, Unjust Enrichment and Countervailing Obligations (Hart Publishing, 2025). He offered a critical and analytically rigorous examination distinguishing the “good consideration rule” from the “obligation rule,” seeking to explain why unjust enrichment claims are precluded when a valid obligation has been discharged. Engaging with leading authorities such as Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516 and International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc [2016] AC 509, Dr Krishnaprasad argued that the good consideration rule essentially involve a lack of enrichment, where enrichment is assessed on a net basis; and that the obligation rule operates as a bright-line principle best understood through the “equality thesis.” His account combined doctrinal depth with normative reasoning, inviting further reflection from both the audience and fellow panellists.

The second presentation was delivered by Dr Timothy Pilkington, who drew from his forthcoming monograph Restitution for a Failure of Condition (Hart Publishing). Dr Pilkington analysed four theoretical accounts — the qualified intention, absence of basis, implied promise, and agreement theories. Drawing on cases including Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 and Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560, he advanced the “agreement theory” as the most convincing framework for determining when restitution should follow a failure of condition. His presentation demonstrated how theoretical distinctions bear directly on contractual outcomes, which prompted thoughtful engagement from the panel and participants alike.

Alongside the two invited speakers and the moderator, the panel included NUS Law Faculty’s Assistant Professors Hu Ying and Marcus Teo. Assistant Professor Hu Ying provided insightful commentary on Dr Krishnaprasad’s theory, while Assistant Prof. Marcus Teo offered observations on Dr Pilkington’s theory. Their probing questions and reflections helped refine the arguments and elicited thought-provoking responses, contributing to a richer and more engaging discussion.

A highlight of the event was the interactive Q&A session, distinguished by a lively exchange both from the audience and among the panellists. Questions explored complex issues such as the tension between restitutionary claims and countervailing obligations, as well as the role of intention in restitution, among other topics.

Closing the symposium, Professor Elliott KC thanked the speakers, panellists, and attendees, affirming the Centre’s role as a hub for private law scholarship.