Benedetti v Sawiris
In a claim for unjust enrichment for services, the enrichment is valued at its objective market value, which may be reduced, but not increased, by the defendant's subjective valuation.
Facts
Mr Benedetti provided services to Mr Sawiris, an Egyptian businessman, in connection with the acquisition of Wind, an Italian telecommunications company. There was no binding contract about his remuneration. After the deal, Mr Sawiris offered him a fee of 75.8 million euros, which he refused as inadequate. He brought a claim in unjust enrichment for the value of his services, and the trial judge awarded him 14.6 million euros, as the market rate for the services. He argued that he should receive more, because Mr Sawiris had valued his services more highly, as shown by the offer.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Lord Clarke said that the starting point for valuing a benefit in kind is its objective market value, which is the price which a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have had to pay for the services. The defendant can argue for a lower value, by showing that he did not value the services so highly, under the principle of subjective devaluation, to protect his freedom of choice, but the claimant cannot rely on the defendant's subjective valuation to increase the value above the market rate. The offer of 75.8 million euros was not evidence of the market value of the services, and Mr Benedetti had already received more than the market value.
Related cases on principles of unjust enrichment
- Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou [2015] UKSC 66, [2016] AC 176
- Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221
- Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752
- Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102
- Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2017] UKSC 29, [2018] AC 275
- Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548
- Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005
- Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP [2017] UKSC 32, [2018] AC 313
Studying restitution and unjust enrichment? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
