Phillip Collins Ltd v Davis
Encyclopedia
Phillip Collins Ltd v Davis [2000] 3 All ER 808 is an English unjust enrichment case, which gives a good example of a restitution claim and the change of position
defence.
released Serious Hits… Live!
with 15 tracks in 1990. Rahmlee Davis and Louis Satterfield were musicians who played in five of them and got royalties from the album sales. In 1997, Collins said they had been mistakenly overpaid. They had been paid as if they had performed on all fifteen, but they had only performed on five. So they had three times too much. To reverse this alleged unjust enrichment, Collins proposed to set off the overpaid royalties on future royalties. Davis and Satterfield argued back they were entitled to royalties without the pro rata reduction, and raised both estoppel and change of position
defences.
One must also remember that Mr. Davis and Mr. Satterfield's work on the first two solo records of Phil Collins were an immeasurable contribution to his career. Ultimately, it is said of Phil Collins "“If he had never done Face Value it would not matter. But he did and touched something real with it. He lost that later. He could have become a John Lennon, but he decided to become Paul McCartney.”
[1991] 2 AC 548 applied). Finally, if Collins had made a claim to recover the overpayments his claim would have been statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980, s.5 because it was six years. But here it was not a return of overpayments, only an equitable set off against future royalties.
The following is an excerpt about the change of position defence at work.
Change of position
Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment, or for restitution. Ordinarily, someone who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is strictly liable to disgorge his gains...
defence.
Facts
Phil CollinsPhil Collins
Philip David Charles "Phil" Collins, LVO is an English singer-songwriter, drummer, pianist and actor best known as a drummer and vocalist for British progressive rock group Genesis and as a solo artist....
released Serious Hits… Live!
Serious Hits… Live!
Serious Hits... Live! is the name of Phil Collins' 1990 live album with a CD as well as the DVD video recording of that concert. The songs on the CD version are taken from various concerts during the Serious Hits! tour, though it sounds as if the CD was recorded over one entire...
with 15 tracks in 1990. Rahmlee Davis and Louis Satterfield were musicians who played in five of them and got royalties from the album sales. In 1997, Collins said they had been mistakenly overpaid. They had been paid as if they had performed on all fifteen, but they had only performed on five. So they had three times too much. To reverse this alleged unjust enrichment, Collins proposed to set off the overpaid royalties on future royalties. Davis and Satterfield argued back they were entitled to royalties without the pro rata reduction, and raised both estoppel and change of position
Change of position
Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment, or for restitution. Ordinarily, someone who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is strictly liable to disgorge his gains...
defences.
One must also remember that Mr. Davis and Mr. Satterfield's work on the first two solo records of Phil Collins were an immeasurable contribution to his career. Ultimately, it is said of Phil Collins "“If he had never done Face Value it would not matter. But he did and touched something real with it. He lost that later. He could have become a John Lennon, but he decided to become Paul McCartney.”
Judgment
Jonathan Parker J held Collins had overpaid Davis and Satterfield and he was entitled to set future royalties off against half of the sums overpaid. He said the overpayment was a mistake of fact, because Collins thought they had played in all 15 tracks. Collins was not estopped from maintaining there was overpayment of royalties because there was never any assumption between the parties that Davis and Satterfield would get royalties for all 15 tracks and there was no acquiescence in the assumption. Overpayment was not acquiescence. There was no evidence Davis and Satterfield ever thought they were entitled. The overpayments did not amount to representations that they were (so no estoppel by representation). But the fact of overpayment did result in a general change of position on Davis and Satterfield’s part. It increased their level of outgoings. However, the defence of change of position was not an “all or nothing” doctrine and, in this case, it would be fair to allow the defence to cover one half of the overpayments (Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale LtdLipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change...
[1991] 2 AC 548 applied). Finally, if Collins had made a claim to recover the overpayments his claim would have been statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980, s.5 because it was six years. But here it was not a return of overpayments, only an equitable set off against future royalties.
The following is an excerpt about the change of position defence at work.