Abstract
Hayward v Zurich Insurance drives a wedge between fraud and mistake. This
paper tests the controversial analysis offered by the Court, exploring the
boundaries of fraud through the lens of tort, unjust enrichment, estoppel by
convention and the doctrine of illegality to identify the range of ways in which
the law responds to prevent and remedy fraud. The discussion reveals the porous
and overlapping boundaries between claims in this fi eld, and also the important,
broader implications for coherence in the law arising out of recognition of an
independent category of “policy-based” reasons for restitution. The analysis
suggests some controversial answers to contemporary challenges posed by
modern commercial law and practice, including for one view of the “at the
expense of” element of claims in unjust enrichment and for the pivotal concept
of “intention” in fraud.
paper tests the controversial analysis offered by the Court, exploring the
boundaries of fraud through the lens of tort, unjust enrichment, estoppel by
convention and the doctrine of illegality to identify the range of ways in which
the law responds to prevent and remedy fraud. The discussion reveals the porous
and overlapping boundaries between claims in this fi eld, and also the important,
broader implications for coherence in the law arising out of recognition of an
independent category of “policy-based” reasons for restitution. The analysis
suggests some controversial answers to contemporary challenges posed by
modern commercial law and practice, including for one view of the “at the
expense of” element of claims in unjust enrichment and for the pivotal concept
of “intention” in fraud.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 91-111 |
| Journal | Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly |
| Publication status | Published - 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |