ABSTRACT
In Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that a dishonest assistant who helped a fiduciary dissipate the profits they had wrongly obtained could be liable in equitable compensation for those lost profits. That was despite the prevailing position in England and Wales that an assistant is only severally liable to account for profits they themselves obtain. Lord Burrows’ dissent preferred that prevailing position be applied equally to cases of ‘compensation’ for ‘loss’. The Court of Appeal reached the same outcome below by apparently applying principles of ‘equitable set-off’ and election. Both starting points are misleading. They misconceive the nature of equitable accounting. They also misconceive the nature of the joint and several liability of parties acting in concert in equity.
Mohseni, Aryan, Accessories, Constructive Trusts and set-off in Equity: Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (July 28, 2025), (2026) 100 Australian Law Journal (forthcoming).
Leave a Reply