Biography

Alexander Georgiou is an Examination Fellow at All Souls College. His research spans philosophical and doctrinal concepts in private law. His doctoral thesis is a two-part inquiry into the law of remedies: the first part develops a philosophical account of bilateral and trilateral remedial relationships (i.e., of the interpersonal and political morality of remedies); the second examines the positive law in light of that account. Beyond his doctoral work, Alex takes a broad interest in the laws of contract, tort, trusts, and unjust enrichment, as well as wider questions of moral and political philosophy in the context of the law and civil justice systems. He is also particularly interested in the intersection of linguistics and law.

Alex read for the BA in Jurisprudence (2014-2017) at Brasenose College, Oxford, for which he received the Martin Wronker Prize for the best performance in FHS. Following his undergraduate studies, he returned to Brasenose to read for the Bachelor of Civil Law (2018-2019), and was then appointed a Lecturer in Law (2019) before taking up his current position.

Alex currently offers undergraduate tutorials in contract, tort, and trusts law, and teaches the Commercial Remedies and Unjust Enrichment options on the BCL. He is also an Editor of the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal and a Convenor of the Obligations Discussion Group. 

Publications

Recent additions

  • A Georgiou, 'Mistaken payments, quasi-contracts, and the "justice" of unjust enrichment' (2022) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (forthcoming)
    The law of unjust enrichment has often been described as the law of events materially identically to a mistaken payment. By this, lawyers often mean that the cause of action in unjust enrichment is somehow shaped and grounded by the reason why the recipient of (some) mistaken payments morally ought to refund the payor. The difficulty, however, is that the normativity of mistaken payments remains a challenge to explain. This paper aims to reinvigorate the view that the moral duty to return mistaken payments is grounded by a tacit agreement between the payor and payee that the payment was conditional (coupled with the failure of that condition). To do so, it critically examines the ways in which our intentions can be conditioned, and how those conditions are communicated in our agreements. The paper concludes by examining what implications a conditions-based understanding might have for the law of unjust enrichment.
  • A Georgiou and E Rawkins, 'Interest and enrichment, again' (2022) Law Quarterly Review [Case Note] (forthcoming)
    Note on Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] UKSC 31; [2021] S.T.C. 1597
  • A Georgiou, 'What’s “unjust” about unjust enrichment: an answer at last?' [2021] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 63 [Case Note]
    Note on School Facility Management Ltd v Christ the King College Governing Body [2020] EWHC 1118; [2020] PTSR 1913

Case Note (4)

A Georgiou and E Rawkins, 'Interest and enrichment, again' (2022) Law Quarterly Review [Case Note] (forthcoming)
Note on Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] UKSC 31; [2021] S.T.C. 1597
A Georgiou, 'What’s “unjust” about unjust enrichment: an answer at last?' [2021] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 63 [Case Note]
Note on School Facility Management Ltd v Christ the King College Governing Body [2020] EWHC 1118; [2020] PTSR 1913
A Georgiou, 'In defence of Sempra' [2019] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 38 [Case Note]
Note on Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] UKSC 39; [2019] AC 929
A Georgiou, 'Marr v Collie: The ballooning of the common intention constructive trust' (2019) 82 Modern Law Review 145 [Case Note]
Note on Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17; [2018] AC 631

Journal Article (2)

A Georgiou, 'Mistaken payments, quasi-contracts, and the "justice" of unjust enrichment' (2022) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (forthcoming)
The law of unjust enrichment has often been described as the law of events materially identically to a mistaken payment. By this, lawyers often mean that the cause of action in unjust enrichment is somehow shaped and grounded by the reason why the recipient of (some) mistaken payments morally ought to refund the payor. The difficulty, however, is that the normativity of mistaken payments remains a challenge to explain. This paper aims to reinvigorate the view that the moral duty to return mistaken payments is grounded by a tacit agreement between the payor and payee that the payment was conditional (coupled with the failure of that condition). To do so, it critically examines the ways in which our intentions can be conditioned, and how those conditions are communicated in our agreements. The paper concludes by examining what implications a conditions-based understanding might have for the law of unjust enrichment.
A Georgiou, 'Taking trusts seriously' (2021) 137 Law Quarterly Review 305
Historically, a trustee who dissipated rights held on trust in breach of that trust was liable, when accounting to their beneficiaries, to have that disbursement “falsified”. This involved omitting the impugned disbursement from the account, and thereafter requiring the trustee to make good what now appeared to be a shortfall in the trust account. Modern doctrine has, however, appeared to move away from this model; instead, it has been suggested that the beneficiaries are entitled only to “equitable compensation” for the loss caused to them by the breach of trust. This article argues, drawing heavily upon analogies with common law remedies for breaches of contract, that in fact both responses – falsification and compensation – co-exist in the modern law. Moreover, it offers a defence of this so-called “remedial dualism” which places particular emphasis on the primacy of the specific (or “primary”) remedy, namely, falsification.

Research projects

Research programmes

Research Interests

Remedies; Unjust enrichment; Contract; Tort; Trusts; Jurisprudence; Moral and political philosophy. 

Options taught

Contract, Tort, Trusts, Commercial Remedies, Restitution of Unjust Enrichment

Research projects