为AIB诉Mark Redler一案辩护

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Trusts & Trustees Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI:10.1093/tandt/ttab045
A. Chan
{"title":"为AIB诉Mark Redler一案辩护","authors":"A. Chan","doi":"10.1093/tandt/ttab045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Following Target Holdings v Redferns and AIB v Mark Redler, it is now common theme that equitable compensation is underpinned by a compensatory mindset requiring but-for causation. This article argues that, despite criticisms that the compensatory reasoning does not sit well with the orthodoxy, the law has moved on. The traditional accounting mechanism should no longer be maintained since it could create unjust results. The better approach is to look at the obligation in question which, together with the underlying policy and the remedial goal, informs the proper remedy to a particular claim.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Defence of AIB v Mark Redler\",\"authors\":\"A. Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tandt/ttab045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Following Target Holdings v Redferns and AIB v Mark Redler, it is now common theme that equitable compensation is underpinned by a compensatory mindset requiring but-for causation. This article argues that, despite criticisms that the compensatory reasoning does not sit well with the orthodoxy, the law has moved on. The traditional accounting mechanism should no longer be maintained since it could create unjust results. The better approach is to look at the obligation in question which, together with the underlying policy and the remedial goal, informs the proper remedy to a particular claim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

继Target Holdings诉Redferns和AIB诉Mark Redler之后,现在的共同主题是,公平补偿是以补偿心态为基础的,这种心态只需要因果关系。这篇文章认为,尽管有人批评补偿性推理不符合正统,但法律已经向前发展。传统的会计机制不应该再维持下去,因为它可能会造成不公正的结果。更好的方法是研究所涉义务,该义务与基本政策和补救目标一起,为特定索赔提供适当的补救。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
In Defence of AIB v Mark Redler
Following Target Holdings v Redferns and AIB v Mark Redler, it is now common theme that equitable compensation is underpinned by a compensatory mindset requiring but-for causation. This article argues that, despite criticisms that the compensatory reasoning does not sit well with the orthodoxy, the law has moved on. The traditional accounting mechanism should no longer be maintained since it could create unjust results. The better approach is to look at the obligation in question which, together with the underlying policy and the remedial goal, informs the proper remedy to a particular claim.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
66.70%
发文量
92
期刊最新文献
CC14 guidance update: greener investments, greater uncertainty? Australian tax arrangements for trusts: Section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (1936) Cth Fathers, daughters, and matters of trust In brief An analysis of the risks that arise for discretionary trust settlements in the event of a divorce: to what extent does the Family Court’s asset division approach undermine discretionary trusts?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1