Publication Type
Magazine Article
Version
acceptedVersion
Publication Date
4-2019
Abstract
The Brickenden rule, which was thought to provide an exception to the requirement of but-for causation of loss in equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty, has recently been rejected by the Singapore High Court in Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others (Winsta Holding). This case comment suggests that although the substantive position arrived at in Winsta Holding is a sound one, it should not entail a rejection of the Brickenden rule. Properly understood, the Brickenden “rule” is consistent with the requirement that the principal prove but-for causation.
Keywords
Brickenden rule, Causation, Equitable compensation, Equity, Fiduciaries
Discipline
Torts
Research Areas
Private Law
Publication
Singapore Law Gazette
ISSN
1019-942X
Publisher
LexisNexis Asia Pacific
Citation
LIU, Nicholas.
Equitable Compensation and the Brickenden “Rule” After Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others. (2019). Singapore Law Gazette.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2923
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Additional URL
https://lawgazette.com.sg/feature/equitable-compensation-and-the-brickenden-rule/