Abstract
Abstract This article reconsiders the causation rules of equitable compensation for breaches of non-custodial fiduciary duties. It argues that these rules should correspond with and reflect the nature of fiduciary duties. Being a compensatory remedy, correct identification of the breach and the relevant counterfactual are therefore crucial. The failure to do so has led to much unwarranted criticism of the Privy Council’s decision in Brickenden. It also argues that a fiduciary is precluded by principle and policy from relying on the ‘escape route’ argument that the loss would have been suffered by his principal anyway.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
