I add only that it is, of course, true that the issues arising on claims for consequential restitutionary relief may have little or no particular connection with the place of performance of the contractual obligation whose existence was disputed. One final step remains to be taken, having regard to the unusual facts of the present case. After P has paid D in purported performance of the contract, the nullity of the contract is established in other proceedings. Thereafter there is no dispute between the parties over the nullity of the contract. The dispute between the parties is confined to the consequences directly flowing from the nullity.
P claims to be entitled to repayment, by way of restitution.
D denies this. If the whole is within the article, so should be a part of that whole. There can be no justification for distinguishing between repayment claims where nullity is disputed and repayment claims where nullity is no longer in dispute.