File Download
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Conference Paper: Stripping the gains of wrongful fiduciaries: let a hundred flowers bloom?
Title | Stripping the gains of wrongful fiduciaries: let a hundred flowers bloom? |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2014 |
Publisher | The University of Hong Kong. The Conference abstracts' website is located at http://www.law.hku.hk/obligationsvii/abstracts/ |
Citation | The 7th Biennial Conference on the Law of Obligations (Obligations VII), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, 15-18 July 2014 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In common law jurisdictions, the principal remedy against a defaulting fiduciary is to
strip his wrongful gains. This can be achieved through a wide gamut of remedies that
may be both personal and proprietary. In relation to the personal action for account of
profits, the established orthodoxy requires a fiduciary to disgorge all the unauthorised
profits he made from his fiduciary position, subject to equitable allowance awarded
by the court: Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver [1942] 1 All ER 378; Murad v Al-Saraj
[2005] WTLR 1573. This strict position, however, has not been universally accepted
in common law jurisdictions. Some courts have sought to lay down remedial
principles to limit the extent of disgorgement, such as by requiring a closer connection
between the breach and the gain: see, for example, Warman International v Dwyer
(1995) 182 CLR 544; Kao Lee & Yip v Koo [2003] 3 HKLRD 296 ..... |
Description | Conference Theme: The Common Law of Obligations: Divergence and Convergence Parallel Session 3C |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/201519 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Ho, LKS | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, R | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-08-21T07:29:37Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-08-21T07:29:37Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | The 7th Biennial Conference on the Law of Obligations (Obligations VII), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, 15-18 July 2014 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/201519 | - |
dc.description | Conference Theme: The Common Law of Obligations: Divergence and Convergence | - |
dc.description | Parallel Session 3C | - |
dc.description.abstract | In common law jurisdictions, the principal remedy against a defaulting fiduciary is to strip his wrongful gains. This can be achieved through a wide gamut of remedies that may be both personal and proprietary. In relation to the personal action for account of profits, the established orthodoxy requires a fiduciary to disgorge all the unauthorised profits he made from his fiduciary position, subject to equitable allowance awarded by the court: Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver [1942] 1 All ER 378; Murad v Al-Saraj [2005] WTLR 1573. This strict position, however, has not been universally accepted in common law jurisdictions. Some courts have sought to lay down remedial principles to limit the extent of disgorgement, such as by requiring a closer connection between the breach and the gain: see, for example, Warman International v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544; Kao Lee & Yip v Koo [2003] 3 HKLRD 296 ..... | - |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | The University of Hong Kong. The Conference abstracts' website is located at http://www.law.hku.hk/obligationsvii/abstracts/ | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Obligations VII Conference | en_US |
dc.title | Stripping the gains of wrongful fiduciaries: let a hundred flowers bloom? | en_US |
dc.type | Conference_Paper | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Ho, LKS: lusinaho@hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Lee, R: rebeccalee@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Ho, LKS=rp01250 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 233889 | en_US |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 252415 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Hong Kong | en_US |