Where loan agreements are integral elements of illegal investment schemes and the schemes have failed, the lender does not have a prima facie entitlement to restitution on the basis of total failure of consideration, because the bargained-for benefit must be assessed by reference to the interconnected scheme arrangements as a whole, not the loan in isolation. Even if a prima facie claim exists, the investors' retention of loan funds is not unjust where the lender (or its assignee) has enforced security over the investors' scheme interests, the investors received no benefit from the failed scheme, and the loans were designed to be repaid from scheme proceeds. The restriction in Pavey & Mathews on reference to terms of unenforceable contracts does not impose an inflexible bar in all contexts; in total failure of consideration cases, the contractual terms ordinarily must be considered.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.