Background
In December 2025, an appeal was heard in relation to the purported unjust enrichment of Lunak Heavy Industries (UK) Limited and Lucasfilm Ltd LLC (L&L). Tyburn (the Claimant) alleged that the Defendants were enriched by the purported right or licence to reproduce the likeness of the late actor Peter Cushing in the film “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” without seeking Tyburn’s permission. Tyburn argued that the enrichment was at its expense, based on a prior agreement with Mr Cushing in 1993 granting Tyburn rights to use techniques, including CGI, to supplement Mr Cushing’s performance in a television film titled “A Heritage of Horror”. Under this 1993 Agreement, the Claimant claimed that the executors of Mr Peter Cushing’s estate had been in breach of contract with the 1993 agreement, specifically referring to clause (h) which stated that:
“If, as a result of the Illness, Mr Cushing’s demise or any other reason without limitation whatsoever or howsoever, the TVM is not produced and/or completed and/or exploited, PCP and Mr Cushing hereby warrant, undertake and agree that neither of them will permit Mr Cushing’s participation in any film or programme whereby Mr Cushing appears, either in whole or in part (other than in person) in or out of any character, by way of Mr Cushing being reproduced by all or any combination of the processes and techniques referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) through (xi) of paragraph (e) hereof, without our express prior written consent – which consent we may grant or withhold at our sole and absolute discretion.”
The Claimant’s claim was against 5 Defendants being the two executors of Mr Cushing’s estate, the agent that represented Mr Cushing during the latter part of his career and Lunak and Lucasfilm. The claim against Lunak and Lucasfilm was for unjust enrichment only and the pleaded elements were as follows:
- They were enriched by: (i) the purported right/licence to reproduce the likeness of Mr Cushing in and in connection with the production etc of Rogue One; and/or (ii) the exploitation and/or use of the right/licence for commercial purposes in connection with Rogue One; and/or (iii) (alternatively) the matters pleaded in (i) and (ii) above, without seeking Tyburn’s permission;
- Those benefits/enrichments were at Tyburn’s direct expense and/or were obtained “as part of a coordinated or closely related transactions” between Tyburn, the Executors and Lunak and Lucasfilm;
- That enrichment at Tyburn’s expense was unjust because: (i) Tyburn was unaware of the fact of, and the circumstances surrounding and leading up to, that enrichment; and/or (ii) Tyburn was operating under a (reasonable, though mistaken) belief that the Executors and the third defendant were co-operating with and intended to involve Tyburn in any arrangement in respect of the reproduction of Mr Cushing’s likeness in Rogue One;
- Tyburn accordingly claimed restitution “in respect of the value of the right(s) obtained and/or exploited by Lunak and Lucasfilm at Tyburn’s expense in a sum to be assessed”.
In 2022, L&L issued an application seeking to strike out the claim against them. Initially this was dismissed because unjust enrichment claims are some of the most difficult to determine and were heavily fact-sensitive and therefore it was not possible to say that the claim was certain to fail or entirely fanciful. In 2024, the decision was appealed to the High Court and was again dismissed on the basis that he could not be certain that the claim was bound for failure given that the field of law was not yet settled.
Unjust enrichment
To establish a claim of unjust enrichment under UK law, four key elements must be satisfied. First, a defendant must have been enriched, which typically involves receiving a benefit, such as money, goods or services. This enrichment does not necessarily require the defendant to retain the benefit at a later date and it can include situations where the defendant has been saved from incurring a necessary expense or has received an undeniable benefit.
Secondly, the enrichment must have occurred at the claimant’s expense. This does not always require a direct transfer from the claimant to the defendant. There must be a sufficient causal connection between the loss suffered by the claimant and the benefit received by the defendant. For example, a defendant may be enriched by the receipt of goods or services or by being relieved of a financial obligation.
Third, the enrichment must be unjust. Generally, this is established by identifying an “unjust factor”, such as mistake, duress, undue influence, failure of basis or legal compulsion. These factors demonstrate that the claimant did not intend for the defendant to retain the benefit in the circumstances. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish the unjust factor causing the enrichment.
Finally, there must be no applicable defences available to the defendant. Common defences include change of position, estoppel or statutory provisions that preclude restitution. The absence of a defence is considered a necessary element to succeed in an unjust enrichment claim.
In this case, L&L argued that the enrichment did not occur at the Claimant’s expense and therefore would have failed to satisfy the test.
The Court of Appeal decision
Following the decision of Tom Mitcheson KC in the High Court, L&L appealed to the Court of Appeal on a single ground being that ‘The Judge erred in law in failing to conclude that, on the facts pleaded and agreed, there was no real prospect of the Claimant establishing that any enrichment of the Fourth and Fifth Defendants was at the expense of the Claimant and that, accordingly, the Particulars of Claim failed to disclose a cause of action against the Fourth and Fifth Defendants and the claim against them was bound to fail’. What this set out is that the issue in question was whether or not L&L were enriched at the expense of the Claimant only.
The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no legal basis for Tyburn’s primary claim. They stated that it suffered from a fatal defect in that it was impossible to identify anything at all that belonged to Tyburn which could have been said to have been transferred to L&L. Tyburn had failed to demonstrate something which amounted to a transfer of value from Tyburn to L&L. They could not show that a loss had been suffered by Tyburn through the provision of the relevant benefit to L&L.
In summary, they found that Tyburn’s claim against L&L was therefore unsustainable as a matter of law.
Final thoughts
This ruling is significant because it clarifies the limits of unjust enrichment in the context of digital likeness rights:
- A contractual blocking right does not necessarily equate to a property‑like interest capable of grounding restitution;
- Film studios may rely on permissions from estates without automatically exposing themselves to claims by third parties with older contractual arrangements; and
- Courts remain willing to strike out claims even in developing technological and legal fields where the claimant’s theory stretches existing doctrine.
With this in mind, it is likely that the law in this area will continue to develop as the use of AI and CGI becomes more prevalent in the media industry and studios may look to bring deceased actors back to life with the magic of cinema.
How can we help?
Giacomo Ciccognani is a solicitor in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you have concerns about the above subject, please contact Giacomo or a member of our expert team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0808 239 3916 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.