Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 DECEMBER 2025

Unjust Enrichment In Construction

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
Contributor
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

UK 2026 Chambers Firm Profile Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) is an international, fully...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

Claims based on restitution and unjust enrichment are not common in a commercial context when there will almost always be some form of agreement that governs the parties' rights and obligations.

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction

Summary

Claims based on restitution and unjust enrichment are not common in a commercial context when there will almost always be some form of agreement that governs the parties' rights and obligations. But in October 2025 there were two decisions that dealt with claims for unjust enrichment, one of which concerned the FIDIC form of contract. This is therefore a useful opportunity to look again at when and how such claims might exist in a construction context.

RMK Maritime (Europe) Ltd v CMB.Tech NV

At the end of October 2025, the decision in RMK Maritime (Europe) Ltd v CMB.Tech NV [2025] EWHC 2739 (Comm) was handed down. This concerned advice provided in relation to mergers and acquisitions work and the claimant sought to pursue a claim in restitution for quantum meruit, alleging the defendant was unjustly enriched by the receipt of services which fell outside the scope of an Advisory Agreement.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from