Obhiosise Benjamin Ogedegbe v Simplyhealth People Limited

A claim in unjust enrichment based on free acceptance requires proof of every element of the applicable threshold test. The claimant must show that the defendant received a benefit, that the enrichment was at the claimant’s expense, and that it was unjust. Free acceptance additionally requires knowledge of the service, appreciation that payment was expected, and an opportunity to reject it.

Comments made by a job applicant during recruitment, directed towards securing employment or complaining about an interview, do not ordinarily indicate that a paid consultancy service was supplied. Where the pleaded claim has no realistic prospect of satisfying the essential legal requirements, summary judgment may be given and the claim may also be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds.

The claimant brought proceedings seeking £735,961 in restitution or damages for alleged unjust enrichment. He contended that comments made during a recruitment process identified deficiencies in the defendant’s website and generated a financial benefit for which he was entitled to remuneration.

The defendant applied for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 and strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b). The claimant relied on unjust enrichment authorities and maintained that the defendant had benefited from his advice. The central issues were whether the defendant had received a benefit and whether the correspondence objectively indicated that a non-gratuitous service had been supplied and could be rejected.

1. Application granted. The claim had no realistic prospect of success and was dismissed as totally without merit. The alternative abuse-of-process ground did not require determination.
2. The court applied the established requirements for unjust enrichment and free acceptance. The claimant had to establish every essential element, including receipt of a benefit by this defendant, enrichment at his expense, and unjustness. Free acceptance required knowledge that a service had been provided, appreciation that payment was expected, and an opportunity to reject the benefit.
3. The defendant was a recruitment and payroll company and the evidence did not show that it received any direct financial benefit from increased insurance sales by another group company. The defendant’s audited accounts attributed its increased revenue to restructuring and transferred staff, rather than insurance sales.
4. The claimant’s email and letter, construed objectively and in context, were communications connected with his job application and complaint about the recruitment process. They did not indicate an offer of website-development or consultancy services for a fee. The later attempt to charge £20,000, made more than a year afterwards, confirmed that no such intention had been communicated when the correspondence was sent. The free-acceptance requirement was therefore incapable of being established.
5. The same reasoning defeated the quantum-meruit aspect of the claim. The court did not need to determine the adequacy of the website information, whether the comments reached the relevant team, whether the website was changed, or whether sales increased.
6. Following the approach explained in Burnford v Automobile Association Developments Ltd, where the claimant has no realistic prospect of success, the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

The judgment records earlier Employment Tribunal proceedings and an appeal from the Tribunal decision, but gives no appellate history for the present High Court claim.