The appellant mistakenly sent a wire transfer to the respondent's bank account.
The respondent, believing the funds were repayment of a loan from a third-party fraudster, subsequently advanced another loan to that third party.
The appellant sued for unjust enrichment based on mistake of fact.
The trial judge found the respondent had a valid defence of change of position.
On appeal, the appellant argued the unusual circumstances of the transfer triggered a duty of inquiry.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no duty to inquire arose because a similar transaction had occurred a week prior and the third party had provided a plausible explanation.