Restitutionary Recovery Ex Aquo Et Bono. Roxborough V Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The law of restitution is in many respects unique. As a coherent body of law it is of remarkably recent origin and, unlike many other areas of law, it is largely untrammelled by statutory intervention. These two factors perhaps explain why the modern law of restitution has emerged in a form that is consistent across virtually the entire common law world, if not in all its finer detail, then certainly in respect of the basic conception of the law. Thus, the superior courts of most common law jurisdictions have accepted that the principle that underlies and gives coherence to the law of restitution is that of unjust enrichment. Recently, however, there are signs of schism in the ius commune of the law of restitution. In Canada, while the centrality of the principle of unjust enrichment remains unchallenged, there has developed, under the influence of Canada's civilian heritage, a different methodology for substantiating claims based on unjust enrichment. The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd4 suggests an even more fundamental departure from the orthodox view. In rejecting unjust enrichment as the basis of the law of restitution, in favour of the principle of unconscientious retention, the High Court looks set to take Australia out of the fold.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".