Journal Name: Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

Abstract:

This article evaluates the impact of Birksian themes through a comparative lens. It is shown how, unlike the English courts, the Singaporean courts have accepted “lack of consent” as an unjust factor, held that actions for restitution of mistaken payments, being based on unjust enrichment, fall outside the scope of the Limitation Act, and accepted Birks’ lack-of-intention analysis of the resulting trust. On these points, perhaps surprisingly, one could even say that Birks’ thinking has found greater traction in Singaporean private law than in its English counterpart. To explain this observation, five possible reasons are ventured.