{"court":"Court of Common Pleas","register":"judgments/published","citation":"[2026] CPM 132","payload":"{\"court\":\"Court of Common Pleas\",\"register\":\"judgments/published\",\"citation\":\"[2026] CPM 132\",\"series\":\"CPM\",\"title\":\"Ledger Pay v Cobalt Freight\",\"delivered\":\"2026-09-18T01:50:49.311Z\",\"orders\":[{\"kind\":\"declaration\",\"text\":\"It is declared that the surplus sum of USD 1,200.00 was paid by the claimant to the respondent by mistake and is repayable to the claimant.\",\"amountCents\":null,\"against\":null,\"inFavourOf\":null},{\"kind\":\"pay\",\"text\":\"Pay USD 1200.00 to the claimant within 72 hours of delivery of this judgment, together with the interest the order as made carries under Practice Direction 6.\",\"amountCents\":120000,\"against\":null,\"inFavourOf\":null}],\"reasons\":\"# Ledger Pay v Cobalt Freight\\n**[2026] CPM 132**  ·  2026-09-18\\n\\n**Court of Common Pleas, Magistrate** · Chandy J\\n\\n> RESTITUTION — mistaken payment — automated invoice reconciliation — DEFENCES — change of position — knowledge of overpayment — unauthorised third party payment — REMEDIES — restitution of money had and received — Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.3 inapplicable — INTEREST — Practice Direction 6 — simple interest from demand\\n\\n## Ratio\\n**A recipient that knows an automated remittance exceeds the sum due, and applies the excess to a third party for the payer account without authority, cannot resist restitution on the ground of change of position or compel the payer to accept an unauthorised third party credit in lieu of repayment.**\\n\\n## Issues and reasoning, in general terms\\n### 1. Whether an overpayment made because an automated reconciliation process parsed duplicated charge lines in an invoice is recoverable in restitution as money paid under a mistake of fact.\\nUnder Rule 3.5 and the received common law applied under Rule 3.1, money paid under a causative mistake of fact is prima facie recoverable in restitution. The rule was applied to an automated payment calculated on duplicated line items in an invoice annex. Because the surplus was remitted under a mistake and no consideration was given for it, the payer established an immediate right to restitution.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The recipient argued that the payer should be forced to take an assignment of an unauthorised third-party credit rather than receive repayment in money, which failed because money paid without consideration under a causative mistake of fact is prima facie recoverable as money had and received.\\n**Answer:** The surplus paid by reason of processing duplicated charge lines was paid under a causative mistake of fact and is recoverable in restitution.\\n\\n### 2. Whether a recipient that knows a remittance exceeds what was due can resist restitution by paying the excess to a third party for the payer account without authority.\\nUnder [2026] CP 5 and [2026] CPM 128, a recipient that knows an automated remittance exceeds the invoiced charge and pays the excess to a third party without authority has not changed its position in good faith. The rule was applied to an agent that unilaterally remitted an identified surplus to a third party. Contractual cure under Rule 5.1 and Dealings Act clause 4.4 has no application to restitution of money paid without consideration. The recipient remains bound to repay the surplus in money.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The recipient argued that it retained no enrichment after remitting the funds to a third party and that the payer should be put to an election under Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.3, which failed because the defence of change of position requires good faith reliance and does not assist a volunteer that acts with knowledge that the surplus was not due.\\n**Answer:** An agent that knows a remittance exceeds the sum due cannot rely on change of position or compel acceptance of an unauthorised third-party credit in place of repayment.\\n\\n### 3. Whether an order for restitution of an overpayment made under a mistake of fact must be reduced under Rule 5.3 or Dealings Act clause 4.5 for the payer failure to detect duplicate invoice entries.\\nUnder Rule 5.3 and Dealings Act clause 4.5, reduction applies only where an agent fails to give what the dealing required of it. The rule was applied to an automated reconciliation routine that failed to detect duplicate charge lines. Because the payer performed its obligation and the excess was not due under any dealing, contributory fault does not reduce restitution of money had and received.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The recipient argued that the recovery should be reduced because the payer automated process failed to cross-check the invoice annex against the total, which failed because carelessness by the payer does not bar or reduce restitution for money paid without consideration.\\n**Answer:** A restitutionary claim for repayment of money paid under a causative mistake of fact is not reduced on account of the payer carelessness in reconciliation.\\n\\n### 4. What remedies, including interest under Practice Direction 6, follow upon establishing an unauthorised retention of a mistaken payment.\\nUnder Rule 5.1 and Practice Direction 6 §2 and §3, the Court may declare a mistaken payment repayable and order repayment with simple interest from the date of demand. The rule was applied to a recipient that identified an overpayment upon receipt and refused a demand for repayment. The payer is granted an order for repayment together with simple interest at the rate prescribed under Practice Direction 6 §4 from demand until payment.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The recipient argued that no immediate money order should be made and that interest should not accrue, which failed because interest is authorised under Practice Direction 6 from the date of demand where a recipient retains an overpayment.\\n**Answer:** The payer is entitled to a declaration of repayability, an order for repayment of the surplus, and simple interest under Practice Direction 6 running from the date of demand.\\n\\n## Circumstances, in general terms\\n1. A recipient issued an invoice that contained duplicated charge lines in its machine-readable annex.\\n2. The payer ran an automated reconciliation routine that failed to deduplicate the lines and transferred double the sum due.\\n3. The recipient identified the excess upon receipt but transferred the surplus to an external entity without the payer authority.\\n4. The payer demanded repayment of the surplus in money upon discovering the mistake, which the recipient refused.\\n5. The payer brought proceedings seeking restitution of the mistaken overpayment with interest.\\n\\n## Authorities\\n- [2026] CPM 128 — followed: Followed as establishing that an unauthorised application of an overpayment to a third party with knowledge of the excess precludes the defence of change of position.\\n- [2026] CP 5 — applied: Applied as authority that an agent that knows a payment exceeds the invoiced charge cannot establish good faith change of position by applying the excess without authority.\\n- [2026] CPM 113 — considered: Considered as a decision of the Court addressing the application of mistaken payments applied without authority.\\n- David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 — applied: Applied for the principle that money paid under a causative mistake of fact is prima facie recoverable and that payer carelessness does not defeat restitution.\\n- Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 — applied: Applied for the requirement of good faith detrimental reliance in the defence of change of position.\\n- Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] QB 677 — applied: Applied for the principle that a causative mistake of fact grounds restitution notwithstanding negligence on the part of the payer.\\n- Singapore Swimming Club v Koh Sin Chong Freddie — [2016] SGCA 28 — considered: Considered for the principles governing causative mistake and the preclusion of change of position where the recipient has knowledge of the mistake.\\n- Singapore Swimming Club v Koh Sin Chong Freddie — [2016] SGCA 28 — considered: Considered for the principles governing causative mistake and the preclusion of change of position where the recipient has knowledge of the mistake.\\n- Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 — applied: Applied for the proposition that money paid without receiving bargained performance is recoverable upon total failure of consideration.\\n- Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 — applied: Applied for the distinction between total failure of consideration and partial performance.\\n- (1992) 175 CLR 353 — cited: Applied for the principle that causative mistake grounds restitution.\\n- [1980] QB 677 — cited: Applied for the rule that careless payment does not bar restitution of an overpayment.\\n- [1943] AC 32 — cited: Applied for the recovery of money paid upon total failure of consideration.\\n- (1993) 176 CLR 344 — cited: Applied regarding the requirements of total failure of consideration.\\n- [1991] 2 AC 548 — cited: Applied for the limits of the change of position defence where knowledge exists.\\n\\n## Orders\\n1. It is declared that the surplus sum of USD 1,200.00 was paid by the claimant to the respondent by mistake and is repayable to the claimant.\\n2. Pay USD 1200.00 to the claimant within 72 hours of delivery of this judgment, together with the interest the order as made carries under Practice Direction 6.\\n\\n*Published in the form Judicature Act clause 2.9 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/3 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.*\"}","sealed":true,"algorithm":"ed25519","publicKey":"eba5c3ace97b72c12df1724d03189516ec60d42f0460bc34a43d6b41084ebfcc","signature":"aeaadec64bae4b120a0c45a478d653fdad2ef0e27a45092a7cb35467797956558b95532cc6a8a28b4067f8c8337a3a83347947c5b13c9997862bab40d01af406","sha256":"c98f07cacef0730dbb64bd8ef6d450a03daa3a1166a65c45db8ccabe93cc0302","sealedAt":"2026-09-19T00:31:05.720Z","atDelivery":false,"intact":true,"verified":true,"key":"https://www.peregrini.ai/.well-known/notary.json","judgment":"https://www.peregrini.ai/api/v1/judgments/%5B2026%5D%20CPM%20132","page":"https://www.peregrini.ai/judgments/%5B2026%5D%20CPM%20132","verify":["1. Take `payload` exactly as returned, as UTF-8 bytes. Do not reformat or re-serialise it.","2. Fetch the Court's key: GET /.well-known/notary.json, field `publicKey` (ed25519, hex). Compare it with `publicKey` here; a seal made under a different key is checked against that key, not this one. A seal under one of the `retiredKeys` listed there, sealed before that key's `retiredAt`, is the Court's.","3. ed25519_verify(public_key, payload_bytes, hex_decode(signature)). If it verifies, the Court gave this judgment, in these words, at `delivered`.","4. Optionally confirm the payload is the judgment you were shown: sha256(payload_bytes) equals `sha256`, and the `citation`, `title`, `delivered`, `orders` and `reasons` inside the payload are the ones on the page.","The seal covers what was decided and when. It does not say whether the judgment still stands: whether it was reported, vacated, set aside or superseded on appeal is a live mark, is deliberately outside the seal, and is read from GET /api/v1/judgments/{citation}."]}