Limiting the Fiduciary's Account of Profits: But-for Causation?

(2020) 26 Trusts & Trustees (Forthcoming)

Posted: 8 Jan 2021

See all articles by Alex C.H. Yeung

Alex C.H. Yeung

University of Oxford - Harris Manchester College

Jason Fee

University of Oxford - Merton College

Date Written: October 14, 2020

Abstract

In an account of profits for breach of fiduciary duty, courts have understandably required some form of nexus between the breach and the gains to be disgorged, but have otherwise struggled to articulate a precise test. In the recent case of UVJ v UVH, the Singapore Court of Appeal broke new ground by requiring but-for causation, apparently branching off from the Anglo-Australian jurisprudence which advocates a more liberal approach to causation. While the but-for test is practically appealing as a technique well known to various areas of law, this article seeks to assess the normative justifications for such a bold move, in view of the attendant issues of deterrence, the unique policy of fiduciary law, and the juridical nature of an account of profits.

Keywords: Fiduciary Law, Causation, Account of Profits, But-for Causation, Deterrence

Suggested Citation

Yeung, Alex C.H. and Fee, Jason, Limiting the Fiduciary's Account of Profits: But-for Causation? (October 14, 2020). (2020) 26 Trusts & Trustees (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3730150

Alex C.H. Yeung (Contact Author)

University of Oxford - Harris Manchester College ( email )

Mansfield Road
Oxford, OX1 3TD
United Kingdom

Jason Fee

University of Oxford - Merton College ( email )

Merton College
Oxford, OX1 4JD
United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
148
PlumX Metrics