“The contract entered into in the instant matter was not binding on the state [;] the Permanent Secretary had no apparent or ostensible authority to enter into same and acted ultra vires of the provisions of the Central Tenders Board Act and Regulations. The Court wishes to point out that Parliament enacted the Act so as to ensure that proper procedure characterized by transparency and fairness is adopted and adhered to in the procurement process. The effect of the Act, is to regulate the conduct of officers of the state and to ensure that contracts are not awarded on an arbitrary or self serving basis by persons such as Ministers who were entitled to contract on behalf of the state at common law. If the spirit and tenor is rigorously followed many of the unfortunate allegations of kickbacks and financial impropriety that have been levied against successive Governments would be curtailed.” (ii) Nevertheless, Trinsalvage had a valid claim for a quantum meruit in unjust enrichment. Although the defendant submitted that there had been no proper pleading of a claim in unjust enrichment, Seepersad J rejected that submission and pointed out that the reply to the defence had made clear that the alternative claim for a quantum meruit was based on unjust enrichment. He referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England (5th ed, Vol 8) paras 410, 414 and 415 to clarify that the claimant must satisfy the court of three elements to succeed in a restitutionary claim for unjust enrichment (subject to any defence): first, that the defendant has been enriched; secondly, that the enrichment was at the expense of the claimant; and thirdly, that the enrichment was unjust. As regards the enrichment element, he appeared to focus on “free acceptance”, as explained in para 415 of the extract from Halsbury’s, and said, at p 26, that it was agreed between the parties that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry “was aware of and accepted the Claimant’s services”
“The ideal pleading of a statement of case by the claimant should indicate that the claim is for restitution of unjust enrichment and should identify facts that satisfy each of those three elements. While it may be desirable, it is not essential, that the words ‘unjust enrichment’ are used but the claimant must identify sufficient facts to show how those three elements are satisfied: see Goff and Jones, The Law of Unjust Enrichment (eds Mitchell, Mitchell and Watterson, 9th ed (2016), para 1-38) [Now 10th ed (2022) paras 1-40 – 1-41]. The important purpose of a statement of case is to ensure, as a matter of fairness, that the defendant knows the case it has to meet.”
“There is no doubt that in English law a restitutionary claim for the return of money may be defeated on grounds of public policy where, on the correct construction of a statute or regulation, recovery in restitution would be contrary to the objective of the statute. … it is well established that if such a [restitutionary] claim is inconsistent with the express provisions of a statute or, I would say, its clear intention, then English law will not permit the claim as a matter of public policy. That is because a common law claim for restitution cannot be allowed to circumvent legislation whose object and effect is to bar such a recovery. …”
“in relation to the issue of quantum the parties have agreed to appoint a joint independent expert to determine or ascertain the value of the works in ascertaining the quantum if necessary and that parties agree to be bound by the valuation of the joint independent expert.”