Unjust Enrichment and the Role of Legal History in England and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Private law evolves slowly over decades or even centuries. Without the benefit of hindsight it is not always obvious that any change has taken place at all. Yet this observation does not inevitably hold true. The emergence of unjust enrichment in the final decades of the twentieth century is a clear counterexample. Little more than a generation has passed since Lord Diplock could state that 'there is no general doctrine of unjust enrichment recognised in English law'. In England such remarks would now be all but impossible. What was once an academic backwater has assumed great importance in claims involving enormous sums of money. The decision which gave unequivocal judicial approval to unjust enrichment as a distinct legal category in England has not yet celebrated its 25th birthday. Judicial recognition of unjust enrichment was also late in coming in the High Court of Australia and the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada was more prescient in this regard, but the law in that jurisdiction has veered off in a very different direction to the rest of the Commonwealth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".