Abstract
Abstract Following Target Holdings v Redferns and AIB v Mark Redler, it is now common theme that equitable compensation is underpinned by a compensatory mindset requiring but-for causation. This article argues that, despite criticisms that the compensatory reasoning does not sit well with the orthodoxy, the law has moved on. The traditional accounting mechanism should no longer be maintained since it could create unjust results. The better approach is to look at the obligation in question which, together with the underlying policy and the remedial goal, informs the proper remedy to a particular claim.
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.
