Editing Subrogation (section)

== Doctrine ==
Countries which have inherited the [[common law]] system will typically have a doctrine of subrogation, but its doctrinal basis in a particular jurisdiction may vary from that in other jurisdictions, depending upon the extent to which [[Equity (law)|equity]] remains a distinct body of law in that jurisdiction.

[[Courts of England and Wales|English courts]] have now accepted that the concept of [[English unjust enrichment law|unjust enrichment]] has a role to play in subrogation.<ref>See, e.g., ''Bank of Cyprus v Menelaou'' [2015] UKSC 66; it was first recognised in ''Banque Financiere v Parc'' [1999] 1 AC 221.</ref> In contrast, this approach has been stridently rejected by the [[High Court of Australia]], where the doctrinal basis of subrogation is said to lie in the prevention of unconscionable results: for example, the discharge of a debtor or one party obtaining double recovery.<ref>''Bofinger v Kingsway'' [2009] HCA 44; Heydon, Leeming and Turner, ''Meagher, Gummow & Lehane's Equity: Doctrine and Remedies'' (5th ed, 2015) 391-2.</ref>