It was said that a broad approach to causation should be taken for change of position
Commerzbank v Price Jones 2003 - there must be a relevant connection between the payment and the change of position
What did Goff and Jones say about reliance and change of position?
Allowing restitution for mistake of fact gives claimants wide protection. Change of position needs to be equally wide to protect defendants.
Wide view of reliance recognised by the courts
Scottish Equitable v Derby 2001
Change of position can also apply where the change of position was made in anticipation of the mistaken payment
Dextra Bank v Bank of Jamaica 2002
The change of position must be after the payment (overruled)
South Tyneside v Svenska International 1995
It is not necessary to show exactly how every part of the money has been spent
RBC Dominion Securities v Dawson 1994 - reasonable approximation is sufficient
What is the position if D has bought property with the money?
The change of position defence will only cover the difference between the purchase price and the resale price.
Two grounds of disqualification of the defence
Illegality (and wrongdoing - Lipkin Gorman)
Bad faith (e.g. Cressman v Coys)
Contributory negligence was rejected for change of position
Dextra Bank v Bank of Jamaica 2002
Estoppel 'all or nothing' defence - case
Avon CC v Howlett 1983 - estoppel operates as a complete defence only. But it cannot operate where it would be unconscionable for D to retain any of the money, where the detriment is a small proportion of the total.
What is the Avon CC v Howlett (1983) exception to the 'all or nothing' nature of estoppel?
Estoppel cannot operate where it would be unconscionable for D to retain any of the money - where the detriment is a small proportion of the total.
In what case was the Avon CC v Howlett (1983) exception applied?
Scottish Equitable v Derby 2001 - D had relied on a representation of C, but only to the extent of £9k out of a total of £172k. Estoppel could not operate.
Change of position effectively makes estoppel a partial defence? E.g. (case)
Scottish Equitable v Derby 2001 - estoppel couldn't be used because money spent was too little of the total, so change of position was used instead.
Agency 'defence' - minority view
Only the principal can be sued (agency is always a defence)
Agency 'defence' - majority view
The agent can be sued unless he has paid the money to his principal in good faith