Abstract
This chapter discusses the availability of remedies effecting disgorgement of profit in Australian private law. It is noted that there are three main remedies which may effect disgorgement of profits: the account of profits, the constructive trust and restitutionary remedies. However, disgorgement of profit in Australian is generally only available for causes of action where equity allowed such a remedy prior to the English Judicature Acts of the nineteenth Century. In the exclusive jurisdiction, such remedies were available for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, breach of confidence, and in the auxiliary jurisdiction, they were available for intellectual property breaches. The rationale of these awards is to deter breaches and to reverse unjust enrichment. Disgorgement of profit is not generally readily available for causes of action with a common law background including breach of contract and tort. Nor is it available for statutory breaches such as consumer law and competition law.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
In Australia, disgorgement is available only for equitable causes of action, intellectual property breaches and (arguably) some proprietary torts. Australian courts have been less willing to expand the availability of disgorgement of profits to other private law causes of action than the courts of other common law countries such as England, the United States and Canada.
Australian courts tend to adhere strictly to the historical divide between the common law and equity which is inherited from English law.Footnote 1 This is particularly the case in the Australian State of New South Wales, where the law continued to be administered by separate courts of common law and equity until the early 1970s.Footnote 2 In other States, legislation was passed in the late nineteenth century which mirrored the UK Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, and allowed a single judge to apply both common law and equity.Footnote 3
To ignore the historical divide between common law and equity is said by some Australian judges in a prominent Australian textbook, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies to be an instance of ‘fusion fallacy’.Footnote 4 ‘Fusion fallacy’ is described as involving:
the administration of a remedy, for example common law damages for breach of fiduciary duty, not previously available at law or in equity, or in the modification of principles in one branch of the jurisdiction by concepts that are imported from the other and thus are foreign, for example by holding that the existence of a duty in tort may be tested by asking whether the parties concerned were in fiduciary relationships.Footnote 5
Meagher, Gummow and Lehane describe ‘fusion fallacy’ as an ‘evil’ practice.Footnote 6 The effect of this view is that a remedy which had its historical origin in one jurisdiction cannot be used in another jurisdiction where that was impossible before the Judicature Acts.Footnote 7 Thus, for example, an account of profits cannot be awarded for breach of contract because this was (arguably) impossible before the Judicature Acts.Footnote 8 Moreover, equity and common law are said to be unable to borrow concepts from each other. For example, the common law concept of exemplary damages cannot be used in the context of breaches of fiduciary duty.Footnote 9
The continued adherence to a strict separation of common law and equity in Australiacan be explained by the fact that most of the authors of Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity have subsequently been become judges in high level courts,Footnote 10 and two of the authors ultimately became Judges of the High Court of Australia,Footnote 11 although there were some on the High Court who felt otherwise.Footnote 12
Nonetheless, a number of Australian academics have called for the principled extension of remedies effecting disgorgement of profits in private law.Footnote 13 One of those authors has also subsequently become a judge.Footnote 14
The Rationales Behind Disgorgement in Australia
Profit-stripping for equitable causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty is generally perceived as having a deterrent rationale whereby courts attempt to encourage defendants to maintain certain standards by stripping profits. By contrast, profit-stripping for intellectual property infringement has a stronger focus on reversing unjust enrichment. Where reasonable fees are concerned, courts sometimes conceive of them as compensatory and sometimes as restitutionary. The basis for their award is contested.
The Three Main Remedies Effecting Disgorgement of Profits
In Australia, disgorgement of profit is generally effected by three means: the remedy of account of profits, the constructive trust and finally, restitutionary awards made where a defendant has profited by use of the plaintiff’s property.
Exemplary damages are very rarely awarded in Australia and are not generally used to strip profits when they are awarded,Footnote 15 but to punish and deter,Footnote 16 to assuage any urge for wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff and to discourage plaintiffs from seeking self-help likely to breach the peace.Footnote 17
Account of Profits
Availability
The equitable remedy of the account of profits explicitly seeks to strip profit from a wrongdoing defendant. Accounts of profits are clearly available for equitable causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty,Footnote 18 breach of trust and breach of confidence,Footnote 19 and for intellectual property breaches. The availability of accounts of profits for intellectual property breaches originated in the auxiliary jurisdiction of equity,Footnote 20 but are now available pursuant to statute for many intellectual property rights.Footnote 21 However, these statutory accounts of profit retain characteristics which reflect their origins in the auxiliary jurisdiction of Equity.Footnote 22 The account of profits is also available in equity’s auxiliary jurisdiction for passing off, a tort relating to intellectual property rights.Footnote 23
Accounts of profit have been said to be unavailable for common law causes of action such as breach of contract and tort in Australia.Footnote 24 The only High Court of Australia authority on this issue, the dissenting judgment of Deane J in Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp, held that a constructive trust stripping profits may sometimes be available for breach of contract absent a concurrent fiduciary obligation.Footnote 25 However, Deane J’s judgment has not been applied subsequently and is regarded as insufficient authority to warrant an award of an account of profits for breach of contract.Footnote 26
As an equitable remedy, accounts of profits are subject to equitable discretion.
Calculation
The calculation of an account of profits is a two-stage process. The first stage provides an account to the plaintiff of the defendant’s financial affairs insofar as they relate to her claim. Once a profit has been identified, it can be stripped from the defendant. This is the second stage of an account. The profits are generally the defendant’s net profits, rather than the defendant’s gross receipts.Footnote 27 The court will not punish the defendant by requiring him to account for more than he has received by reason of the breach of duty.Footnote 28 However, if it is impossible to work out whether the profit is the defendant’s or the plaintiff’s because the defendant has mixed them, or if the defendant’s conduct has been fraudulent, courts may not apportion the gain.Footnote 29 Similarly, if a trustee makes a profit by misapplying trust money, it is likely that the plaintiff will be entitled to the entire profit.Footnote 30
In assessing net profit, courts have traditionally made allowance for certain expenses incurred by the defendant in two ways.Footnote 31 First, they have sometimes allowed specific disbursements, such as expenditures of money and other capital, as well as skilled labour by the defendant.Footnote 32 Secondly, courts have credited the defendant with an allowance which is not specifically itemised, but more of an ‘all things considered’ allowance.Footnote 33
The High Court of Australia has recognised the difficulties in calculating profit derived from wrongdoing, and noted that ‘“mathematical exactitude” is generally impossible’.Footnote 34
Election
A plaintiff seeking an account of profits must generally elect between equitable compensation (a compensatory remedy) and an account of profits (which disgorges profit), and the election is binding.Footnote 35 In Warman International Limited v Dwyer, the High Court allowed the employer one week after judgment to elect between an account of profits and equitable compensation. A plaintiff must have sufficient information to enable her to make a fair choice between equitable compensation and an account of profits.Footnote 36
Constructive Trusts
Availability
As Deane J’s judgment in Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp indicates, another remedy effecting disgorgement is the constructive trust over profits. It is awarded for equitable causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty,Footnote 37 breach of trust or breach of confidence.Footnote 38 It gives the plaintiff an equitable proprietary interest in the profits. The defendant is said by the court to be a trustee of the profit and to be holding it for the benefit of the plaintiff. Some English and Australian commentators have suggested that courts should simply order the defendant to reconvey the property to the plaintiff rather than using the constructive trust mechanism.Footnote 39
A controversial question arises where a dishonest fiduciary accepts a bribe. It is clear that the bribe should be stripped, but the question is whether a constructive trust or an account of profits should be used. There is no High Court of Australia authority on the issue. In Grimaldi v Chameleon Minding NL (No 2) Footnote 40 the Full Federal Court said in obiter dicta that dishonest fiduciaries should be stripped of their profit by means of a proprietary remedy in order to deter such behaviour.Footnote 41 However, in keeping with High Court authority suggesting constructive trusts should be awarded sparingly,Footnote 42 the court did not suggest that a constructive trust would automatically arise, particularly if the defendant was insolvent or third parties would be adversely affected.Footnote 43 Thus, the current Australian position is that a constructive trust may be available over bribes taken in breach of fiduciary duty, but that depending upon the interests of third parties, a lesser remedy such as a lien may be more appropriate. This approach is more flexible than the position in England and Wales. After vacillation between the two extremes of an immediate constructive trustFootnote 44 or no trust at all,Footnote 45 the English Supreme Court has recently decided that an immediate constructive trust should be available over bribes.Footnote 46 It must be queried whether a lien is really less intrusive to third party creditors than a constructive trust when there is insolvency, as it still gives the beneficiary of the fiduciary obligation priority over the unsecured creditors.Footnote 47 The only advantage is that it will not encompass any subsequent increase in value to the property. The better solution may be to award a personal remedy where there is insolvency.Footnote 48
Sometimes courts obscure awards of disgorgement for breach of contract under an analysis which allows for stripping of profit on the basis that the defendant is a trustee under a constructive trust.Footnote 49
Calculation
Because this remedy attaches to the property itself, its value depends on the value of the property itself from time to time, and is not set at a fixed rate. A constructive trust encompasses increases in the value of property after judgment. It also gives a plaintiff a distinct advantage where a defendant becomes insolvent, because it entitles the plaintiff to recover property to which the defendant has title not only as against the defendant, but also as against the defendant’s unsecured creditors. By contrast, a personal remedy such as an account of profits simply entitles the plaintiff to share pari passu with the defendant’s other unsecured creditors.
Reasonable Fees
Profit stripping may at least arguably be effected in common law for some proprietary torts (trespass to land, trespass to goods, conversion and detinue) where the defendant has profited by use of the plaintiff’s property. Courts typically award a reasonable fee for the use of the good, but also sometimes strip profits derived from the sale of the property.
Historically, the plaintiff was said to be able to ‘waive’ the tort where a tort had been committed (i.e. give up an action for compensatory damages) in favour of an action for money had and received (a restitutionary remedy). ‘Waiver’ suggests that the right to sue in tort is entirely relinquished, but this is misleading. Instead, the plaintiff elects between a compensatory remedy and a restitutionary remedy. However, there is an ongoing controversy as to the nature of these damages. Academics and courts continue to debate whether these awards are compensatory, restitutionary or effect disgorgement, and whether they are based on the existence of property rights or property-like rights.Footnote 50
Australian courts may grant ‘reasonable fee’ awards where defendants have used certain property or infringed certain rights in a tortious manner. These awards will be made where certain proprietary torts are committed,Footnote 51 or where there is an infringement of an intellectual property right. ‘Reasonable fee’ awards also overlap with the jurisdiction of Australian courts to award Lord Cairns’ Act damages in lieu of an injunction.Footnote 52 The damages awarded in lieu of an injunction sometimes reflect the fee the plaintiff might have sought if the defendant had sought consent to relax the right in question.Footnote 53
Differences Between Private Law Causes of Action
Equitable Causes of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Trust and Breach of Confidence
Disgorgement remedies are readily awarded in Australian law for equitable causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust and breach of confidence. Both accounts of profit and constructive trusts over profits may be awarded for these causes of action. Arguably, there is a strong deterrent flavour to the award of profit stripping remedies in this area.Footnote 54 It is no defence, for example, that the beneficiary of a fiduciary obligation was unwilling, unlikely or unable to make the profits for which an account is taken, nor is it a defence that fiduciary acted honestly and reasonably.Footnote 55 Nonetheless, the availability of an allowance for skill and effort in favour of the defendant may alleviate any harshness of an account of profits in some instances, and in Australia at least it appears these may be available even where a fiduciary deliberately and dishonestly breached his fiduciary duty.Footnote 56 The principles which govern their award are the ones which are discussed previously under the heading Accounts of profit.
Intellectual Property
It has been said that the purpose of the account of profits for intellectual property infringements is not to punish the defendant, but to prevent the defendant from being unjustly enriched.Footnote 57 Thus, its purpose is said to be different to that of account of profits for breach of fiduciary duty.Footnote 58
In Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Ltd,Footnote 59 Windeyer J outlined three essential points about accounts of profit for intellectual property infringements. First, an account of profits is generally ancillary to an injunction. Thus, the plaintiff is generally only entitled to an account if it can also be shown that the plaintiff is also entitled to an injunction, although this is not an absolute requirement in trademark litigation, and in that case it was enough to show that an injunction could have been granted at the commencement of proceedings.Footnote 60 Secondly, generally, the plaintiff can only claim an account over profits derived from the period where it is shown that the defendant knowingly infringed the plaintiff’s intellectual property right. This is known as the ‘innocent infringement defence.’ Thirdly, the general equitable discretionary factors operate to a degree in regard to accounts of profits based in intellectual property. In Colbeam, Windeyer J said that he thought delay and acquiescence could operate to a certain extent, particularly when considering when the defendant became aware of the infringement.Footnote 61
The innocent infringement defence operates very differently in different areas of intellectual property as a result of the differing scope of the legislation in question.Footnote 62
Damages calculated on a ‘reasonable fee’ basis are also available for intellectual property infringements, as wrongful use of intellectual property has been treated similarly to wrongful use of corporeal property.Footnote 63 If there is a single act of use, damages will be calculated on the basis of a licence fee,Footnote 64 but if there are multiple uses, damages are assessed on a royalty basis.Footnote 65 The court must ascertain ‘what a willing licensee would have been prepared to pay and a willing licensor to accept’ by reference to the actual characteristics of the parties in dispute.Footnote 66 Generally, courts and commentators have treated such damages as compensatory. The ‘reasonable fee’ is said to reflect the sales lost as a result of the infringement, not a fair market value of the use of the right.Footnote 67 Nonetheless, it has been argued that such damages have a restitutionary flavour.Footnote 68 Debate continues as to whether the nature of these damages is compensatory or restitutionary in nature, or perhaps a mixture of both.Footnote 69
The defence of ‘innocent infringement’ may also be available for claims of reasonable fee damages, and generally operate in a similar way to the defence noted earlier in relation to the account of profits.Footnote 70
Tort
As noted earlier, accounts of profit are said to be unavailable for tort in Australia according to a majority of the Full Federal Court in Hospitality Group v Australian Rugby Union.Footnote 71 However, Emmett J in the minority would have awarded an account of profits for torts where benefits were derived from property belonging to the plaintiff, or where it would be unjust to allow the wrongdoer to retain them.Footnote 72
Remedies which effectively strip profit may be available pursuant to the doctrine of ‘waiver of tort’. In old English cases, courts used the action for money had and received as a method of stripping defendants of the entire profits derived from the commission of proprietary torts, often where the defendant sold the plaintiff’s property without authority.Footnote 73 The plaintiff was allowed to maintain an action for money had and received over the proceeds of sale of the property on the basis that there had been an ‘implied contract’ between the plaintiff and the defendant, but implied contract has now been recognised by the High Court of Australia as a fiction.Footnote 74
Reasonable fee awards have been made for a number of proprietary torts in Australia including trespass to land,Footnote 75 and for trespass to goods, conversion and detinue.Footnote 76 Historically, courts awarded reasonable fees for trespass to land in the ‘wayleave’ casesFootnote 77 and the ‘mesne profit’ cases.Footnote 78 The ‘wayleave’ cases arise when the defendant uses the plaintiff’s land without denying the plaintiff possession. The ‘mesne profit’ cases arise when the defendant wrongfully withholds possession of the land from the plaintiff, typically after the expiry of a lease, where a reasonable fee is the standard measure.Footnote 79 Courts have also sometimes awarded reasonable fee damages in lieu of an injunction for a proprietary tort pursuant to Lord Cairns’ Act.Footnote 80 As noted earlier, the categorisation of reasonable fee awards as effecting disgorgement or even as restitutionary is controversial, and often courts express the opinion that such awards are compensatory. There is no Australian case law on whether ‘reasonable fee’ damages should be available for non-proprietary torts.
Contract
Australian law does not allow accounts of profit, constructive trusts, or reasonable fee damages for breach of contract.Footnote 81 It has been argued by some Australian academics that gain-based relief should be available in exceptional circumstances, but no courts have adopted these analyses yet.Footnote 82
The most likely way for such an award to be made in Australia would be through the Lord Cairns’ Act provisions, where damages may be given in lieu of an injunction. Indeed the English case of this kind, Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd Footnote 83 formed an essential plank of Lord Nicholls’ reasoning in Attorney-General v Blake,Footnote 84 the case which led to the award of accounts of profit for breach of contract in England. This is because Lord Cairns’ Act allows a limited statutory fusion between common law and equity.Footnote 85
In some common law countries, courts achieve disgorgement for breach of contract by characterising the contractual relationship as fiduciary (albeit often unconvincingly).Footnote 86 This is particularly the case for breaches of negative covenant.Footnote 87 However, Australian courts do not do this.
Statutory Schemes Other Than Intellectual Property Statutes
The Australian Consumer Law regulates unfair contractual terms, and misleading or deceptive conduct.Footnote 88 There is no explicit provision in the Australian Consumer Law allowing for disgorgement and nor was there any provision under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the predecessor of the Australian Consumer Law. Similarly, there are no provisions for profit stripping for breaches of competition law contained in the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Directors of corporations are subject to fiduciary duties, and may be liable for an account of profits for their breach. The fiduciary and other duties owed by directors to companies under equity are buttressed by ss 180–183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth),Footnote 89 which are civil penalty provisions.Footnote 90 The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that if civil penalty provisions are breached, the calculation of compensation to the corporation or scheme affected by the breach may include the profits made as a result.Footnote 91
Conclusion
Presently, Australia is less willing than other common law jurisdictions to expand the availability of disgorgement in private law. It is quick to award disgorgement for breaches of fiduciary duty and for intellectual property breaches, and perhaps awards restitution for proprietary torts. Disgorgement is not available for breaches of contract or for non-proprietary torts.
The equitable and common law division inherited from English law continues to divide Australian law, with the focus of courts being on the historical origins of the cause of action rather than the nature of the conduct and whether it calls for deterrence of wrongdoing or prevention of unjust enrichment. English courts have been less conservative than Australian courts, and less concerned about the historical origins of causes of actions. For example, the House of Lords recognised that disgorgement may be available for breach of contract.Footnote 92 It is to be hoped that the Australian courts will free themselves from the shackles of history and interpret the law in a way which ensures that, in appropriate cases, wrongdoers are deterred from making profitable breaches.
Notes
- 1.
The complex history is described in Meagher et al. (2002), 11–30.
- 2.
See Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 57–63; Law Reform (Law and Equity) Act 1972 (NSW), s 5.
- 3.
See now Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 25–32; Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), ss 242–249 (previously Judicature Act 1876 (Qld), ss 4–5; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), ss 20–28; Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas), ss 10–11; Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 29; Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), ss 24–25.
- 4.
Heydon et al. (2015).
- 5.
Ibid, 48–49.
- 6.
Ibid, 48.
- 7.
Tilbury (2003), 358–59.
- 8.
However, see Gleeson et al. (2005), 676–708, who argue that accounts of profits were available for breach of contract in equity’s auxiliary jurisdiction prior to the Judicature Acts. They cite: M’Intosh v Great Western Railway Co (1850) 2 Mac & G 74; 42 ER 29; Barry v Stevens (1862) 31 LJ Ch 785; Shepard v Brown (1862) 4 Giff 208; 66 ER 681; Manners v Pearson [1898] 1 Ch 581 and Davis v Hueber (1923) 31 CLR 583.
- 9.
See Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 298 (Spigelman CJ and Heydon JA, Mason P dissenting).
- 10.
Meagher JA (New South Wales Supreme Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal); Gummow J (Federal Court and of the High Court of Australia); Lehane J (Federal Court); Heydon J (New South Wales Court of Appeal and High Court); Leeming JA (New South Wales Court of Appeal).
- 11.
Degeling and Edelman. (2004), 197.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Edelman J formerly of the Western Australian Supreme Court now on the Federal Court of Australia.
- 15.
Cf Testel Australia Pty Ltd v KRG Electrics Pty Ltd [2013] SASC 91, [106]. Blue J reads Emmett J’s suggestion that gain-based relief should be allowed for tort in Hospitality Group v Australian Rugby Union (2001) 110 FCR 157 as allowing for exemplary damages.
- 16.
Whitfield v De Lauret & Co Ltd (1920) 29 CLR 71, 77 (Knox CJ), 81 (Isaacs J); Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, 1221 (Lord Devlin); Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118, 129–30 (Taylor J), 149 (Windeyer J).
- 17.
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1, 9.
- 18.
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544.
- 19.
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1990] 1 AC 109.
- 20.
See Barnett and Harder (2014), 351.
- 21.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 122(1), Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 115(2); Designs Act 1906 (Cth), s 32B(1); Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), s 126; Circuit Layouts Act 1989 (Cth), s 27(2); Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth), s 56(3).
- 22.
Hastie (1996), 13.
- 23.
My Kinda Town Ltd v Soll [1983] RPC 15.
- 24.
Hospitality Group v Australian Rugby Union (2001) 110 FCR 157, 197–99 (Hill and Finkelstein JJ).
- 25.
(1984) 156 CLR 41, 124–25.
- 26.
Testel Australia Pty Ltd v KRG Electrics Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] SASC 91, [101].
- 27.
Patel v London Borough of Brent [2003] EWHC 3081, [29] (Morritt V-C); Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver and Others [1967] AC 134, 154 (Lord Wright); O’Sullivan v Management Agencies & Music Ltd [1985] QB 428, 458 (Dunn LJ).
- 28.
Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41, 108–09 (Mason J) referring to Vyse v Foster (1872) LR 8 Ch App 309, 333 (James LJ).
- 29.
Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41, 109–10 (Mason J).
- 30.
Scott v Scott (1963) 109 CLR 649; see also Paul A Davies (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v Davies [1983] 1 NSWLR 440.
- 31.
Harding (2009), 346–47.
- 32.
Brown v Litton (1711) 1 P Wms 140, 24 ER 329; Yates v Finn (1880) 13 Ch D 839; Chirnside v Fay [2007] 1 NZLR 433, [2006] NZSC 68 [153] (Tipping J).
- 33.
Brown v De Tastet (1821) Jac 284; 37 ER 858; Featherstonhaugh v Turner (1858) 25 Beav 382; 53 ER 683; Lord Provost of Edinburgh v Lord Advocate (1879) 4 App Cas 823; Phipps v Boardman [1964] 1 WLR 993; O’Sullivan v Management Agencies & Music Ltd [1985] QB 428.
- 34.
Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101, 111 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ). See also Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544, 558; Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25, 37 (Windeyer J).
- 35.
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544, 559. See also Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25, 32 (Windeyer J). See Watterson (2004), 471–494, who argues that the requirement to elect is a relatively recent phenomenon.
- 36.
Tang Man Sit (dec’d) v Capacious Investments [1996] AC 514.
- 37.
Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas T King 61; 25 ER 223; Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46; Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178.
- 38.
See e.g., Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 14.
- 39.
- 40.
[2012] FCAFC 6, (2012) 200 FCR 296, [569]–[584] (Finn, Stone and Perram JJ).
- 41.
[2012] FCAFC 6, (2012) 200 FCR 296, [576].
- 42.
Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty Ltd (1998) 195 CLR 566, [42]; Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101, [10], [49]–[50] (the Court); John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1; [2010] HCA 19, [126]–[129].
- 43.
[2012] FCAFC 6, (2012) 200 FCR 296, [583].
- 44.
Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1AC 324.
- 45.
Lister v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch D 1; Sinclair v Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 347, [2012] Ch 453.
- 46.
Cedar Capital Partners LLC v FHR European Ventures LLP [2014] UKSC 45.
- 47.
Barnett (2015).
- 48.
Finch and Worthington (2000), 19.
- 49.
See e.g., Lake v Bayliss [1974] 1 WLR 1073; Bunny Industries Ltd v FSW Enterprises Pty Ltd [1982] Qd R 712; Luxe Holding Ltd v Midland Resources Holding Ltd [2010] EWHC 1908.
- 50.
See the extensive discussion of the various academic points of view in Barnett and Harder (2014), 360–63.
- 51.
See e.g., LJP Investments v Howard Chia Investments (1989) 24 NSWLR 499; Hampton v BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2012] WASC 285; Strand Electric & Engineering v Brisford Entertainment [1952] 2 QB 246; Gaba Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd v Turner Corp Ltd (1991) 32 NSWLR 175; Bunnings Group Limited v Chep Australia Limited [2011] NSWCA 342.
- 52.
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 20; Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 68; Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT), s 14(1)(b); Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 8; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 30; Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas), s 11(13); Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 38; Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 25(1).
- 53.
See e.g., Wrotham Park Estates Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798; Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269; Bracewell v Appleby [1975] Ch 408.
- 54.
- 55.
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544, 558.
- 56.
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544, 561. Cf Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46, 104 (Lord Cohen), 112 (Lord Hodson); Guinness plc v Saunders [1990] 2 AC 663, 701 (Lord Goff).
- 57.
Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101, 111.
- 58.
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544, 557.
- 59.
(1970) 122 CLR 25.
- 60.
Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Ltd (1970) 122 CLR 25, 31.
- 61.
Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Ltd (1970) 122 CLR 25, 33.
- 62.
See for a detailed consideration of the differences: Barnett and Harder (2014), 352–53.
- 63.
Brennan (2011), 214.
- 64.
Chabot v Davies [1936] 3 All ER 211, 228.
- 65.
Lewis Trusts v Bambers Stores [1982] FSR 281.
- 66.
General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd [1976] RPC 197, 221, 225 (Lord Wilberforce).
- 67.
Australasian Performing Rights Association v Grebo Trading Co Pty Ltd (1978) 23 ACTR 30, 31 (Blackburn J).
- 68.
Brennan (2003), 190.
- 69.
- 70.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 123; Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth), s 57; Designs Act 2003 (Cth) s 75; Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 115 (3); Circuit Layouts Act 1989 (Cth), s 27(3). See Barnett and Harder (2014), 352–53, 364.
- 71.
Hospitality Group v Australian Rugby Union (2001) 110 FCR 157, 197–99 (Hill and Finkelstein JJ). See also Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Granite Hill Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 279, [463]–[467], esp [464]. Cf USA: Edwards v Lee’s Administrator 96 So W 2d 1028 (1936).
- 72.
ibid, 198–99.
- 73.
Oughton v Seppings (1830) 1 B & Ad 241; 109 ER 776; Lamine v Dorrell (1706) 2 Ld Raym 1216; 92 ER 303.
- 74.
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221, 227 (Mason and Wilson JJ); 255–56 (Deane J). See Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Limited (2001) 208 CLR 516, [2001] HCA 6, [90] (Gummow J).
- 75.
LJP Investments v Howard Chia Investments (1989) 24 NSWLR 499; Hampton v BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2012] WASC 285.
- 76.
Strand Electric & Engineering v Brisford Entertainment [1952] 2 QB 246; Gaba Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd v Turner Corp Ltd (1991) 32 NSWLR 175; Bunnings Group Limited v Chep Australia Limited [2011] NSWCA 342.
- 77.
Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M & W 351, 151 ER 149; Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 Ch 742; Phillips v Homfray (1871) LR 6 Ch App 770; Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal & Coke Company [1896] 2 Ch 538.
- 78.
Elliott v Boynton [1924] 1 Ch 236; Wilson v Kelly [1957] VR 147; Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet [1979] 1 WLR 285; Ministry of Defence v Ashman [1993] 2 EGLR 102; Ministry of Defence v Thompson [1993] 2 EGLR 107; Lollis v Loulatzis [2007] VSC 547.
- 79.
Balanced Securities Ltd v Bianco [2010] VSC 201, [16].
- 80.
Bracewell v Appleby [1975] Ch 408; Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269.
- 81.
Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby Union Ltd (2001) 110 FCR 157, 196 (Hill and Finkelstein JJ); Town & Country Property Management Services Pty Ltd v Kaltoum [2002] NSWSC 166, [85] (Campbell J); Biscayne Partners Pty Ltd v Valance Corp Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 874, [232]–[235] (Einstein J); Short v Crawley [2005] NSWSC 928 [24] (White J); Hydrofibre Pty Ltd v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd and Anor [2013] QSC 163, [91]–[94]; Testel Australia Pty Ltd v KRG Electrics Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] SASC 91, [99]–[109].
- 82.
- 83.
[1974] 1 WLR 798.
- 84.
[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268.
- 85.
Jolowicz (1975), 227.
- 86.
Barnett (2012), 121, 126–28.
- 87.
Snepp v United States, 444 US 507 (1980); Reading v Attorney General [1951] UKHL 1, [1951] AC 507; Reid-Newfoundland Co. v Anglo-American Telegraph Co Ltd [1912] AC 555.
- 88.
Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
- 89.
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 180–183.
- 90.
‘Civil penalty provisions’ are defined by Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1317E.
- 91.
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 1317H(2), 1317HA(2), 1317HB(2).
- 92.
Attorney-General v Blake [2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268.
Bibliography
Bant, E. 2010. Trusts, powers and liens: An exercise in ground-clearing. Journal of Equity 4: 286–311.
Bant, E., and M. Bryan. 2011. Constructive trusts and equitable proprietary relief: Rethinking the essentials. Journal of Equity 5: 171–198.
Bant, E., and M. Bryan. 2012. Specific restitution without trusts. Journal of Equity 6: 181–207.
Bant, E., and M. Bryan. 2013. A model of proprietary remedies. In The principles of proprietary remedies, ed. E. Bant and M. Bryan, 211–228. Sydney: Thomson Reuters.
Barnett, K. 2012. Accounting for profit for breach of contract: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Barnett, K., and S. Harder. 2014. Remedies in Australian Private Law. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, K. 2015. Distributive justice and proprietary remedies over bribes. Legal Studies 35: 302–322.
Brennan, D. 2003. Retransmission and US Compliance with TRIPS. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Brennan, D. 2011. The beautiful restitutionary heresy of a Larrikin. Sydney Law Review 33: 214–227.
Conaglen, M. 2010. Fiduciary loyalty: Protecting the due performance of non-fiduciary duties. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Cooter, R., and B.J. Freedman. 1991. The fiduciary relationship: Its economic character and legal consequences. New York University Law Review 66: 1045–1075.
Degeling, S., and J. Edelman. 2004. Fusion: The interaction of common law and equity. Australian Bar Review 25: 195–204.
Edelman, J. 2002. Gain-based damages: Contract, tort, equity and intellectual property. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Finch, V., and S. Worthington. 2000. The Pari Passu principle and ranking restitutionary rights. In Restitution and insolvency, ed. F. Rose. London: Mansfield Press. pp. 19 et seq.
Gleeson, J., and J. Watson. 2005. Account of profits, contracts and equity. Australian Law Journal 79: 676–708.
Harder, S. 2010. Measuring damages in the law of obligations: The search for harmonised principles. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Harding, M. 2009. Justifying fiduciary allowances. In The goals of private law, ed. A. Robertson and H.W. Tang. Oxford: Hart Publishing. pp. 341 et seq.
Hastie, P. 1996. Restitution and remedy in intellectual property law. Australian Bar Review 14: 12–20.
Heydon, J.D., M.J. Leeming, and P.G. Turner. 2015. Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies, 5th ed. Pyrmont: Butterworths.
Jolowicz, J.A. 1975. Damages in equity – A study of Lord Cairns’ Act. Cambridge Law Journal 34: 224–252.
Kirby, M. 2008. Equity’s Australian isolationism. Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 8(2): 444–469.
Mason, A. 1997–1998. Equity’s role in the twentieth century. Kings College Law Journal 8: 1–20.
Swadling, W. 2011. The fiction of the constructive trust. Current Legal Problems 64: 399–433.
Tilbury, M. 2003. Fallacy or furphy? Fusion in a judicature world. University of New South Wales Law Journal 26: 357–376.
Watterson, S. 2004. An account of profits or damages? The history of orthodoxy. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24: 471–494.
Worthington, S. 1999. Reconsidering disgorgement for wrongs. Modern Law Review 62: 218–240.
List of Cases
United Kingdom
Attorney-General v Blake [2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
Barry v Stevens (1862) 31 LJ Ch 785
Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
Bracewell v Appleby [1975] Ch 408
Brown v De Tastet (1821) Jac 284; 37 ER 858
Brown v Litton (1711) 1 P Wms 140, 24 ER 329
Cedar Capital Partners LLC v FHR European Ventures LLP [2014] UKSC 45
Chabot v Davies [1936] 3 All ER 211
Elliott v Boynton [1924] 1 Ch 236
Featherstonhaugh v Turner (1858) 25 Beav 382; 53 ER 683
General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd [1976] RPC 197
Guinness plc v Saunders [1990] 2 AC 663
Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269
Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 Ch 742
Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas T King 61; 25 ER 223
Lake v Bayliss [1974] 1 WLR 1073
Lamine v Dorrell (1706) 2 Ld Raym 1216; 92 ER 303
Lewis Trusts v Bambers Stores [1982] FSR 281
Lister v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch D 1
Lord Provost of Edinburgh v Lord Advocate (1879) 4 App Cas 823
Luxe Holding Ltd v Midland Resources Holding Ltd [2010] EWHC 1908
M’Intosh v Great Western Railway Co (1850) 2 Mac & G 74; 42 ER 29
Manners v Pearson [1898] 1 Ch 581
Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M & W 351, 151 ER 149
Ministry of Defence v Ashman [1993] 2 EGLR 102
Ministry of Defence v Thompson [1993] 2 EGLR 107
My Kinda Town Ltd v Soll [1983] RPC 15
O’Sullivan v Management Agencies & Music Ltd [1985] QB 428
Oughton v Seppings (1830) 1 B & Ad 241; 109 ER 776
Patel v London Borough of Brent [2003] EWHC 3081
Phillips v Homfray (1871) LR 6 Ch App 770
Phipps v Boardman [1964] 1 WLR 993
Reading v Attorney General [1951] UKHL 1, [1951] AC 507
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver and Others [1967] AC 134
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
Shepard v Brown (1862) 4 Giff 208; 66 ER 681
Sinclair v Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 347, [2012] Ch 453
Strand Electric & Engineering v Brisford Entertainment [1952] 2 QB 246
Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet [1979] 1 WLR 285
Vyse v Foster (1872) LR 8 Ch App 309
Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal & Coke Company [1896] 2 Ch 538
Wrotham Park Estates Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798
Yates v Finn (1880) 13 Ch D 839
Australia
Australasian Performing Rights Association v Grebo Trading Co Pty Ltd (1978) 23 ACTR 30
Balanced Securities Ltd v Bianco [2010] VSC 201
Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty Ltd (1998) 195 CLR 566
Biscayne Partners Pty Ltd v Valance Corp Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 874
Bunnings Group Limited v Chep Australia Limited [2011] NSWCA 342
Bunny Industries Ltd v FSW Enterprises Pty Ltd [1982] Qd R 712
Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178
Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25
Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101
Davis v Hueber (1923) 31 CLR 583
Gaba Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd v Turner Corp Ltd (1991) 32 NSWLR 175
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Grimaldi v Chameleon Minding NL (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 6, (2012) 200 FCR 296
Hampton v BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2012] WASC 285
Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 298
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41
Hospitality Group v Australian Rugby Union (2001) 110 FCR 157
Hydrofibre Pty Ltd v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd and Anor [2013] QSC 163
John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1
LJP Investments v Howard Chia Investments (1989) 24 NSWLR 499
Lollis v Loulatzis [2007] VSC 547
Paul A Davies (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v Davies [1983] 1 NSWLR 440
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221
Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Limited (2001) 208 CLR 516, [2001] HCA 6
Scott v Scott (1963) 109 CLR 649
Short v Crawley [2005] NSWSC 928
Testel Australia Pty Ltd v KRG Electrics Pty Ltd [2013] SASC 91
Town & Country Property Management Services Pty Ltd v Kaltoum [2002] NSWSC 166
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544
Whitfield v De Lauret & Co Ltd (1920) 29 CLR 71
Wilson v Kelly [1957] VR 147
New Zealand
Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324
Chirnside v Fay [2007] 1 NZLR 433, [2006] NZSC 68
Hong Kong
Tang Man Sit (dec’d) v Capacious Investments [1996] AC 514
Canada
Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 14
Reid-Newfoundland Co. v Anglo-American Telegraph Co Ltd [1912] AC 555
United States
Edwards v Lee’s Administrator 96 So W 2d 1028 (1936)
Snepp v United States, 444 US 507 (1980) (USSC)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barnett, K. (2015). Disgorgement of Profits in Australian Private Law. In: Hondius, E., Janssen, A. (eds) Disgorgement of Profits. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18758-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18759-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)