Foskett v. McKeown – Hard-nosed property rights or unjust enrichment?
Melbourne University Law Review, Vol: 25, Issue: 1, Page: 295
2001
- 1,857Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,857
- Downloads1,680
- 1,680
- Abstract Views177
Artifact Description
The recent judgment of the House of Lords in Foskett is extremely important as it straddles insurance law, property law, tracing and unjust enrichment. First, it establishes the proposition that it is possible to trace misappropriated moneys wrongfully paid as premiums into the proceeds of a policy. Second, two of the Law Lords contemplated the abolition of the distinction between the rules for tracing in law and tracing in equity. Third, the judgments of the Law Lords contain valuable guidance as to the context in which equitable ownership and the law of unjust enrichment should be viewed.
Bibliographic Details
Melbourne University, Law Review Association
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know