NEWS

Unjust Enrichment and Money Had and Received

Did you know: When you discover that a payment on a claim has been made by mistake, or that fraud may be involved, recovery of that payment can be pursued in reliance on the general concept of “unjust enrichment” / “money had and received”. 

Unjust enrichment

Generally speaking, a party is said to be “unjustly enriched” if they have unfairly benefitted from another party, for example, where a third party receives a payment that it is not entitled to from an insurer. In order to establish unjust enrichment, the following three elements must be proven:

  1. that there was a benefit received by the third party;
  2. that the benefit was at the expense of the insurer; and
  3. the circumstances make it unjust for the third party to retain the benefit.

It is important to note that “unjust” is not just a descriptive word in the sense that it allows for subjective evaluation of what is fair or unconscionable. Instead, as per the High Court in David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia, “unjust” has recognised elements (such as mistake, duress, or illegality) which may give rise to recoverability. Accordingly, one or all of these vitiating factors must present in a mistaken payment before insurers can consider an unjust enrichment-style recovery.

Money had and received

“Money had and received” claims fall under the umbrella of unjust enrichment where money was paid by mistake. These style of claims arise where one party has paid a sum to another under the mistaken belief that the funds were lawfully owed. In order to establish a money had and received claim, we must establish that in making the payment there was a belief that there was no other practicable alternative.

In David Securities, the High Court outlined that “when a Plaintiff has paid money for a consideration that had totally failed, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment consists in his retaining of money which, when the consideration fails, he no longer has any right to retain. Enrichment is unjust because the Defendant has no right to receive or, as the case may be, to retain the money … transferred to him”.

We are presently assisting insurers with money had and received recoveries (with respect to claims subsequently determined to be fraudulent after payment has already been made) and are having some great success in recovering funds.  So, if you find a claim where it appears that money has been paid where it should not have, please feel to contact William Roberts Lawyers and we can properly advise how best to recover those funds.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related News

Doyles Guide Leading Class Action Lawyers, Australia 2026

William Roberts are proud to announce that  Bill Petrovski and Ding Pan have been selected as Leading Class Actions Lawyers – Australia, 2026. The 2026

Read More

Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826

Please, Your Honour, May I Have Some More (of my fees)? – Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826 Justice Parker’s decision

Read More

Zamagias v Saltalamacchia [2026] NSWCA 48: A Lesson on the Value of Contemporaneous Evidence

In a decision handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 2 April 2026, Justice Adamson with President Ward and Justice Free

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

William Roberts Lawyers

Sydney

Level 22
66 Goulburn Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

PO Box 20424, World Square NSW 2000

Melbourne

Level 7,

171 La Trobe Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000

 

PO Box 13171, Law Courts VIC 8010

Brisbane

Level 9
193 North Quay
BRISBANE QLD 4000

 

PO Box 12170, George Street QLD 4003

Singapore

Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place
SINGAPORE 048623