#6896 - Parkinson V. College Of Ambulance - Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL

Parkinson v. College of Ambulance

Facts

The defendants, the College of Ambulance, Ld., were incorporated in September, 1918, under the Companies Acts, 1908-1917, as a company limited by guarantee without share capital. The objects with which the college was formed were (inter alia) to establish a college or school for the teaching of the principles and practice of first aid and ambulance work, and to organize and carry on the administration of immediate aid and assistance to poor persons. The president of the college at the material times was H.R.H. Princess Christian, and it was governed by a council composed of a number of distinguished persons. The defendant Harrison was the managing secretary of the college.

In October, 1921, the plaintiff, Colonel Parkinson, was approached by a gentleman, who asked whether he was interested in the subject of a knighthood. Subsequently the plaintiff was introduced to the defendant Harrison at the College of Ambulance. Harrison at an interview on October 10, 1921, told the plaintiff that he himself or the College of Ambulance had the power to nominate persons to receive titles of honour, and that he himself or the college through their president H.R.H. Princess Christian had a call upon a certain number of royal honours as distinguished from political honours, that he or the college had already arranged for the grant of a peerage and a baronetcy in the then forthcoming list of honours, and that he or the College of Ambulance would arrange for the grant to the plaintiff of the honour of a knighthood, provided that the plaintiff would make a substantial payment by way of donation to the College of Ambulance.

Harrison suggested that the plaintiff should pay 20,000l. to the college. At another interview on the following day Harrison repeated his former statements and said that the college would require 10,000l. He suggested that the plaintiff should purchase certain property at Birkenhead for the college and that he should also rebuild the college hall in Queen Anne Street. Ultimately it was agreed that the plaintiff should pay down 3000l. and that he should purchase the property at Birkenhead for 2000l., which he should convey to the college, and provide other moneys, bringing the total amount up to 10,000l., when he received his knighthood. Relying on Harrison's representations, the plaintiff handed to Harrison a cheque for 3000l. drawn in favour of the College of Ambulance. This money was paid into the banking account of the College of Ambulance. The plaintiff on October 13 received a letter of thanks for the donation from the council of the college, which was signed by the president, H.R.H. Princess Christian.

The plaintiff was introduced to an official at the Unionist offices who, when the plaintiff informed him of the object of his visit and that he had paid 3000l. to obtain a knighthood, told the plaintiff that he had been fooled. The plaintiff did not receive a knighthood.

The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to Harrison on December 23, 1921, demanding the return of the 3000l. On February 8, 1923, the plaintiff's solicitors again demanded the return of the 3000l. Harrison replied on February 20, 1923, that the plaintiff gave 3000l. to the College of Ambulance as an act of charity and that it would be an unheard of thing for the college to return the money.

Holding

Defendant was not acting as the College’s agent

After hearing arguments on the question, I am of opinion that there was no sufficient evidence either of holding out or of actual authority. I do not think that the council who control the affairs of the college or the committee did anything to mislead the plaintiff. There is no evidence at all that they held Harrison out as their ostensible agent.

Contract is contrary to public policy and hence void

I come, then, to the main questions in the case, and the first that I will deal with is the question whether the contract was against public policy and therefore illegal. In spite of Mr. Merriman's able argument I cannot feel any doubt that a contract to guarantee or undertake that an honour will be conferred by the Sovereign if a certain contribution is made to a public charity, or if some other service is rendered, is against public policy, and, therefore, an unlawful contract to make.

Claim under the contract or for money had and received

The contract being against public policy, and being of the...