Urgensi Penerapan Doktrin Unjust Enrichment di Indonesia: Studi Banding dengan Jerman dan Singapura

Authors

Ghani Maeda Yuhandri, Universitas IndonesiaFollow

Abstract

The doctrine of unjust enrichment states that no one should be enriched at the expense of another. In Indonesia, the concept of unjust enrichment is not yet recognized in the civil law system. However, the spirit of the doctrine of unjust enrichment is implicitly found in Article 1359 to Article 1364 of the Civil Code which regulates unpaid payments. Unlike Germany and Singapore, these two countries have recognized unjust enrichment as a basis for liability called restitution. This form of restitution emphasizes the return of the enjoyment received to the injured party. In this paper, we will discuss the urgency of applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment in Indonesia by analyzing Court Decisions in Indonesia, Germany, and Singapore.

Bahasa Abstract

Doktrin unjust enrichment menyatakan bahwa tidak seorang pun yang boleh diperkaya dengan merugikan pihak lain. Di Indonesia, konsep unjust enrichment belum dikenal dalam sistem hukum keperdataan. Akan tetapi, spirit mengenai doktrin unjust enrichmentsecara implisit telah ditemukan dalam Pasal 1359 hingga Pasal 1364 KUHPer yang mengatur mengenai pembayaran tak terutang. Berbeda dengan Jerman dan Singapura, dua negara tersebut telah mengakui unjust enrichment sebagai dasar pembebanan kewajiban yang disebut sebagai restitusi. Bentuk restitusi menekankan pada pengembalian kenikmatan yang diterima kepada pihak lain yang dirugikan tersebut. Dalam tulisan ini, akan dibahas mengenai urgensi penerapan doktrin unjust enrichment di Indonesia dengan menganalisis Putusan Pengadilan di Indoenesia, Jerman, dan Singapura.

References

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

1. Buku

Birks, Peter. An Introduction to Unjust Enrichment, Ed. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dannemann, Gerhard. The German Law of Unjustified Enrichment and Restitution: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2009.

Fakhirah, Efa Laela. Selayang Pandang tentang Hukum Acara Perdata Singapura. Bandung: Universitas Padjajaran, s.a.

Johnston, et al. Unjustified Enrichment. (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002)

Neyers, J. M McInnes, dan S Pitel. Understanding Unjust Enrichment. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004.

Soekanto, Soerjono. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia (UI-Press), 2006.

Zimmerman, Reinhard. Roman Law in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

1. Artikel Jurnal

Davrados, Nikolaos A. “Demystifying Enrichmenr Without Clause.” Lousiana Law Review. Vol. 78, No. 4 (2018).

Harvard Law Review. “Developments in The Law: Unjustified Enrichment.” Harvard Law Review. Vol. 133 (2020).

Klimchuk, Dennis. “The Scope and Structure of Unjust Enrichment.” University of Toronto Law Journal. Vol. 57, No. 4 (2007).

Kurniawan, Faizal. Erni Agustin, Rizky Amalia, “Acknowledgement of Unjust Enrichment to Achieve Corrective Justice in the Path of Indonesian Law of Obligations Reform.” International Law Conderence (2018).

Tang, Hang Wu. “The Role of the Law of Unjust Enrichment in Singapore.” Chinese Journal of Comparative Law. Vol. 9, No. 1 (2021).

Yeo, Tiong Min. “Unjust Enrichment: Revolution and Evolution in the Asia-Pacific.” Restitution Law Review. Vol. 4, No. 25 (2020).

1. Peraturan Perundang-undangan

Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.

Singapore Commercial Law, Chapter 19.

1. Putusan Pengadilan

Bundesgerichtshof (German’s Federal Court) Decision No. BGHZ 55, 176.

Mahkamah Agung. Putusan Kasasi No. 2220K/Pdt/2021. Dyah Widhityaningsih melawan PT Cahaya Puspita Raya Mega Town Square Palangka Raya dan Tugiyo Wiroatmojo (2021).

Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta. Putusan Banding No. 213/Pdt/2018/PT DKI. Subash Shewaram Nathani melawan Lasmono (2018).

Pengadilan Tinggi Surabaya. Putusan Banding No. 448/Pdt/2015/PT Sby. R, Daersono Soedarmo dkk melawan Tonny Sugiarto(2015).

Singapore High Court. Judgment [1991] 2 SLR (R) 445. Standard Chartered Bank melawan Sin Chong Hua Electric & Trading Pte Ltd (1991).

The High Court of the Republic of Singapore. Putusan Banding No. [2016] SGHC 274, AAHG dan LLC melawan Hong Hin Kay Albert (2016).

Recommended Citation

Yuhandri, Ghani Maeda (2025) "Urgensi Penerapan Doktrin Unjust Enrichment di Indonesia: Studi Banding dengan Jerman dan Singapura," Lex Patrimonium: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 11.
Available at: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/lexpatri/vol4/iss1/11