In Grech vs Gauci, the Court provided that there is still enrichment despite the fact that the assets of the beneficiary did not increase.
The first basic element is the notion of enrichment.
Testaferrata Bonnici, the Court laid down the three fundamental and cumulative elements for this action. In one of the earliest judgments on the matter, Said vs. However, the actio de in rem verso is a subsidiary action and can only be employed when the issue is not governed by contract, law or any other obligation. One of the main strong suits of this action is its flexibility in that it can cater for various situations and seeks to provide a remedy to anyone who has been wronged in whatever shape or form. Micallef, “ li terga’ trodd l-ekwilibriju bejn il-patrimonju ta’ min ikun staghna u dak tal-parti li tkun ghamlet jew nefqet spejjez biex dan ikun sehh.” The aim of this action is described eloquently by the Court in Bartolo vs. Owing to its quasi-contract nature, the obligation does not arise from a contract and therefore, in line with the principle of objective justice forming the basis of this action, one is entitled to compensation regardless of consent and capacity. One should be compensated for the benefit gained by an individual without a just cause to the detriment of the former. The notions of equity and fairness serve as the foundation of this action.
#Actio de in rem verso code#
The action of unjustified enrichment, also known as the actio de in rem verso, dates back to Roman Law and despite the fact that it was formally included in the Maltese Civil Code in 2007 by means of Article 1028A, it has always been accepted by the Maltese Courts.
0 kommentar(er)
