Unjust enrichment — money had and received — recovery of funds — mistaken payment — company name change — share transfer — Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, s 10. The plaintiff sought the recovery of $51,485 from the defendant. The plaintiff said that it had paid the amount to the defendant by mistake, and alleged unjust enrichment and money had and received. The parties had previously been in a business relationship that ended when the plaintiff chose to terminate it and engage a different company for its IT services. Because of the end of the parties' working relationship, the plaintiff asked the defendant to change its name to clearly differentiate the parties in the eyes of the public. The defendant demanded large payments in return for changing its name; all negotiations between the parties broke down when the plaintiff refused these demands. Some eleven months later, the plaintiff's Chief Financial Officer made a mistaken payment of $51,500 to the defendant, the result of confusion over the defendant's name. The defendant's managing director then refused to refund the amount, arguing that it was his due fee for changing the defendant's name. The Court found that the defendant must have known that the plaintiff had refused its demands for payment for the name change. By contrast the Court accepted the plaintiff's submission that the payment was genuinely mistaken. There was no legitimate reason for the defendant to refuse to refund the money. The Court entered judgment for the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to return the money, together with interest and costs. Judgment Date: 23 August 2021