INTRODUCTION
In a recent book chapter, Lord Briggs confessed ‘to a feeling of considerable disquiet’ about the law regarding an account of profits against dishonest assistants as set out by the Court of Appeal in Novoship (UK) Ltd v Nikitin. Although permission to appeal in Novoship was refused back in 2014, the judicial and scholarly discourse that ensued over the next decade strongly indicates that Lord Briggs was right to remark that there exists ‘fertile ground for a visit to the Supreme Court’. This is especially so given that the High Court of Australia in Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Ltd v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd has adopted a contrasting position from Novoship. This article shall examine and address two controversies in the accounting of profits against dishonest assistants. The first issue concerns the justification for awarding the remedy against such individuals. The second issue, one that has troubled Lord Briggs, concerns the causation test in the award of the remedy …
€
Weiming Tan, ‘Account of profits in dishonest assistance, the “equal rigour” principle, and the retreat from “status”’ (2026) 142 Law Quarterly Review (Jan) 58-84.
Leave a Reply