ABSTRACT
Although the idea of a general liability to return unjust enrichment is not universally accepted by commentators,185 it is suggested that this must be right. Assuming that the concept of ‘enrichment’ is sound in this respect (a matter we deal with below), it is difficult to argue with the proposition that the various heads of liability now collected under the title ‘unjust enrichment’ have a great deal in common, and that differences between them, while they may exist, ought to have to be justified. Like cases should be decided alike; and this should apply to cases of unjust benefit as it applies anywhere else. This is not, of course, to say that different treatment can never be defended. To take one example: where the State is a defendant to a claim for the return of taxes wrongfully demanded, there may well be good grounds for limiting recovery in order to prevent disaster to public finances.186 But, where there are differences or discrepancies, they should have to be justified.
