An energy engineering expert who assisted a company in preparing an application for a grant by an international fund for the implementation and development of a project, out of an interest in working on the project, demanded to receive about 80% of the funds received from the fund as part of the project.
The Court rejected the expert’s claim and held that he acted to promote self-interest and was therefore not entitled to restitution. Unjust enrichment arises where one enriches itself at the expense of another, unlawfully, and for this three conditions must be met: The first is receipt of an asset, service or benefit (enrichment); The second is that the enrichment comes to the beneficiary from the benefactor; The third is that the enrichment was received by the beneficiary "not by right". In circumstances where the receipt did not involve a disadvantage of the benefactor or there are circumstances that make the restitution unjust, the beneficiary may be exempt from the obligation of restitution. A person who acted to promote self-interest is not entitled to restitution from others who benefited from its action. Here, the expert did indeed assist the company in preparing a plan, and as a result, the funds were received from the fund, however, the grant funds were given 'lawfully'. Moreover, the expert assisted the company out of a desire to take part in the project and to be employed as an external contractor. Therefore, the assistance in preparing the plan is an action to promote self-interest that does not entitle to restitution. Therefore, the expert's claim to receive its ‘fare share’ out of the grant’s funds was rejected.