Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I wouldn't have thought that such matters of high theory would be resolved by a judicial decision. Leaving that aside, the basis of liability is, I would say, the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct. It is an interesting question whether one who breaches a confidence should be required to yield the profits secured thereby. I would not think this to be question to be resolved on the basis of adherence or lack of same to a parasitic theory, but rather on the basis of a determination (or not) that this is an appropriate form of redress for this particular form of wrongdoing. There is no reason to assume (as far as I have yet been persuaded) that there is a necessary coincidence between the rules grounding compensatory damages and those grounding disgorgement. I understood this to be the point of the Beatson/Friedmann line and it still strikes me as a compelling one.

Quoting William Swadling:

It is difficult to see how the Beatson/Friedmann line can be sustained in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in United Australia v Barclay's Bank [1941] AC 1. Moreover, if the claim in such cases is not parasitic, then what is it based on? How else, for example, are we to explain the order that the defendant give up his gain in a case such as A-G v Guardian Newspapers (profits made in breach of confidence)?