The relationship between contract and unjust enrichment has been addressed in RMK Maritime, Lunak Heavy Industries (UK) Ltd v Tyburn Film Productions Ltd §76 and Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Ltd v Lan Support Ltd §80.

Whilst Rogers v Wills may have generated much interesting discussion of principle in inverse proportion to the sums involved (save from the perspective of the protagonists), perhaps the largest restitution claim in the English courts, running into the billions of US dollars, was the mammoth judgment of Trower J in SC Commercial Bank Privatba nk v Kolomoisky [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch), concerning misappropriation of monies from what had been Ukraine’s largest bank against two of its founding shareholders and various corporate defendants. However, the governing of law of the unjust enrichment claims was either Ukrainian or Cypriot law. Similar litigation on a major scale saw the trial of the Danish tax authority’s claim for recovery of sums paid on dividend tax refund claims in a sum of some £1.4 billion in the wake of the decision in Skatteforvaltningen (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration) v Solo Capital Partners LLP [2023] UKSC 40; [2024] AC 539; [2024] LMCLQ 505, §83. However, the trial before Andrew Smith J in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm) resulted in all the contested claims being dismissed because the claimant could not establish inducement for the purposes of misrepresentation. Appeals look likely in both.