The High Court has struck out an unjust enrichment claim brought by an unsuccessful job applicant who claimed his advice had benefited the employer. The claimant applied for a job with Simplyhealth, a health insurance company. At interview, he was asked to do a sales pitch for one of Simplyhealth’s products. Afterwards, he emailed the interviewers pointing out that certain information regarding premiums and levels of cover, that would help potential customers make an informed decision, was missing from its website. He was not offered the job. He subsequently wrote to the CEO of Simplyhealth, complaining of unfairness in the interview and pointing out the missing website information again.

Some time later, he noticed that the website had been updated. He wrote again, seeking to charge a “£20,000 fee for … Business Consultancy services which prompted Simplyhealth to correct their errors on their website”. He then brought a claim for unjust enrichment on a quantum meruit basis.

The High Court struck out the claim as having no real prospect of success. The defendant company was the recruitment arm of the Simplyhealth Group, not part of the insurance sales operation. There was no evidence it had made any extra revenue from increased sales, and it had therefore received no benefit from the advice. In any event, the nature of the benefits relied upon in previous unjust enrichment cases was “worlds apart” from the claimant’s “few brief words” in an email.

Furthermore, the case was premised on the concept of “free acceptance”, which required that the defendant knew a service was being offered, knew or ought to have known it was not being offered gratuitously, and had the opportunity to decline it. The court held that the claimant’s correspondence was not such that a reasonable person should have known payment would be expected. His email had been intended to secure an employment contract; there was no suggestion that he was offering web development advice for which a fee might be paid. Likewise, the main thrust of his letter to the CEO was that the interview had been unfair and that he should be offered the job. The court noted that candidates often offer ideas on how they could make a difference if recruited, but such comments are directed at securing employment and nothing more.

What is Unjust Enrichment?

In broad terms, a claimant who asserts a claim in restitution must establish three elements:

• The defendant has been enriched, or has received a benefit.
• The enrichment of the defendant is unjust.
• The enrichment of the defendant was at the expense of the claimant.