Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| 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 ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
