Dear RDG members,
[Apologies for cross-posting]
The High Court of Australia handed down the decision of
Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones
[2013] HCA 35 on Wednesday, which dealt with a claim by a barrister against a legal practitioners’ fidelity fund, but which also raised issues regarding
Quistclose trusts.
Elise Bant from Melbourne Law School (and RDG member) has just written an excellent post on the case for the Law School blog for those of you who wish to know more about the case:
http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/08/16/bant-gillespie-jones/
Kind regards,
Katy
Dr Katy Barnett
Senior Lecturer
Melbourne Law School
University of Melbourne
Parkville 3010 VIC
AUSTRALIA
Ph: + 61 3 9035 4699
This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.