This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Guinness V. Saunders Notes

Updated Guinness V. Saunders Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL

Approximately 620 pages

These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrased) I made during the Oxford BCL for the Restitution of Unjust Enrichment course....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Guinness v. Saunders

Facts

My Lords, the appellant, Mr. Ward, admits receiving 5.2m., the money of the respondent company, Guinness, at a time when Mr. Ward was a director of Guinness. Payment of this sum to Mr. Ward was, he says, remuneration authorised by Mr. Saunders, Mr. Roux and Mr. Ward, who formed a committee of the board of directors of Guinness. It is admitted by Mr. Ward that payment was not authorised by the board of directors. In these proceedings Guinness claim 5.2m. from Mr. Ward and in this application Guinness seek an order for immediate payment on the grounds that the articles of association of Guinness and the facts admitted by Mr. Ward show that the payment to Mr. Ward was unauthorised and must be repaid.

In these present proceedings, Mr. Ward pleads that in consideration of Mr. Ward 'providing advice and services' to Guinness during the currency of the offer (which he refers to as 'the bid') Guinness agreed, in the event of the success of the bid, to pay to Mr. Ward a sum equivalent to 0.2 per cent. of the ultimate value of the bid. The agreement is said to have been entered into by Mr. Saunders, Mr. Ward and Mr. Roux on behalf of Guinness and Mr. Ward on his own behalf. It is said that Mr. Saunders orally agreed about 19 February 1986, and that Mr. Roux orally agreed about the beginning of May 1986, and that the agreement was made or evidenced by an invoice delivered to Guinness by a company now admitted to be controlled by Mr. Ward.

Provisions of Guiness’ AoA:

90. The board shall fix the annual remuneration of the directors provided that without the consent of the company in general meeting such remuneration (excluding any special remuneration payable under article 91 and article 92) shall not exceed the sum of 100,000 per annum....

91. The board may, in addition to the remuneration authorised in article 90, grant special remuneration to any director who serves on any committee or who devotes special attention to the business of the company or who otherwise performs services which in the opinion of the board are outside the scope of the ordinary duties of a director.

Holding

Lord Templeman

AoA precludes an award of Quantum Meruit

My Lords, the short answer to a quantum meruit claim based on an implied contract by Guinness to pay reasonable remuneration for services rendered is that there can be no contract by Guinness to pay special remuneration for the services of a director unless that contract is entered into by the board pursuant to article 91. The short answer to the claim for an equitable allowance is the equitable principle which forbids a trustee to make a profit out of his trust unless the trust instrument, in this case the articles of association of Guinness, so provides. The law cannot and equity will not amend the articles of Guinness. The court is not entitled to usurp the functions conferred on the board by the articles.

Equity forbids a trustee to make a profit out of his trust. The articles of association of Guinness relax the strict rule of equity to the extent of enabling a director to make a profit provided that the board of directors contracts on behalf of Guinness for the payment of special remuneration or decides to award special remuneration. Mr. Ward did not obtain a contract or a grant from the board of directors. Equity has no power to relax its own strict rule further than and inconsistently with the express relaxation contained in the articles of association.

Applying Restitutio Integrum would amount to enforcing an ultra vires contract

It was submitted on behalf of Mr. Ward that Guinness, by the committee consisting of Mr. Saunders, Mr. Ward and Mr. Roux, entered into a voidable contract to pay remuneration to Mr. Ward and that since Mr. Ward performed the services he agreed to perform under this voidable contract there could be no restitutio integrum and the contract cannot be avoided. This submission would enable a director to claim and retain remuneration under a contract which a committee purported to conclude with him, notwithstanding that the committee had no power to enter into the contract. The fact is that Guinness never did contract to pay anything to Mr. Ward. The contract on which Mr. Ward relies is not voidable but...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.

More Restitution Of Unjust Enrichment Bcl Samples