Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>
Sender:
Lionel Smith
Date:
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:01:16
Re:
new fiduciary case

 

Greetings all, and welcome to new members.

This is to announce a new case, Swindle v. Harrison [1997] 4 All ER 705, in which the CA held that even though there had been a breach of fiduciary duty by a solicitor named Swindle (sic) (non-disclosure of secret profit), and the client suffered a loss in the ensuing transaction, the loss was not recoverable as it was not causally related to the breach. But maybe if the breach had been one which was the "equivalent of fraud" (717b) it would be otherwise. (?)

Hodgkinson v. Simms, SCC, not followed, cited, or otherwise noticed.

This case is clearly not about restitution but we do see the annoying habit of referring to that measure of damages which ignores causation as the "restitutionary measure" (715d; cf Canson v. Boughton, SCC).

  

Lionel
This personal computer certified 100% free of Microsoft products.


<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !