{"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":" ","pages":""},"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}
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.