Equitable Compensation and the Brickenden “Rule” After Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others
The Brickenden rule, which was thought to provide an exception to the requirement of but-for causation of loss in equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty, has recently been rejected by the Singapore High Court in Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others (Winsta Holdin...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2923 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4881/viewcontent/Equitable_Compensation_and_the_Brickenden__Rule__After_Winsta_Holding_Pte_Ltd.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | The Brickenden rule, which was thought to provide an exception to the requirement of but-for causation of loss in equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty, has recently been rejected by the Singapore High Court in Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others (Winsta Holding). This case comment suggests that although the substantive position arrived at in Winsta Holding is a sound one, it should not entail a rejection of the Brickenden rule. Properly understood, the Brickenden “rule” is consistent with the requirement that the principal prove but-for causation. |
|---|