Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

25 results

Page 1 of 2

  • FIDUCIARIES THEN AND NOW

  • Sarah Worthington
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 80 / Issue S1 / September 2021
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 October 2021, pp. S154-S178
    Print publication:
    September 2021

  • This article takes as its starting point three ground-breaking articles by Len Sealy in the 1960s, and examines their lasting impact on the modern law of fiduciaries. It includes a detailed consideration of the modern tendency to describe rather than define fiduciaries; it critiques the current readiness to merge fiduciaries with other power-holders, thus ignoring the significant differences between the duties of loyalty in issue in the two contexts; and finally it evaluates and defends the modern approach to fiduciary remedies, especially equitable compensation.

Commercial Remedies: Resolving Controversies
  • Edited by Graham Virgo, Sarah Worthington
  • Published online:
    30 August 2017
    Print publication:
    24 August 2017
  • The law of commercial remedies raises a number of important doctrinal, theoretical and practical controversies which deserve sustained and rigorous examination. This volume explores such controversies and suggests solutions, which is essential to ensure that the law is defensible, clear and just. With contributions from twenty-three leading academic and practitioner experts, this book addresses significant issues in the law which, taken together, range across the entire remedial jurisdiction as it applies to commercial disputes. The book primarily focuses on the resolution of controversies in the English law of commercial remedies, but recent developments elsewhere are also considered, especially in other common law jurisdictions. The result provides remarkably comprehensive coverage of the field which will be of relevance to academics, students, judges and practitioners.

  • DIRECTORS' DUTIES AND IMPROPER PURPOSES

  • Sarah Worthington
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 75 / Issue 2 / July 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 July 2016, pp. 213-216
    Print publication:
    July 2016

  • IN Eclairs Group Ltd. v JKX Oil & Gas plc.; Glengary Overseas Ltd. v JKX Oil & Gas plc. [2015] UKSC 71, the Supreme Court had a rare opportunity to analyse the rules on directors' exercise of power for improper purposes, and to do so in a context which raised more subtleties than earlier authorities.

  • FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND PROPRIETARY REMEDIES: ADDRESSING THE FAILURE OF EQUITABLE FORMULAE

  • Sarah Worthington
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 72 / Issue 3 / November 2013
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 November 2013, pp. 720-752
    Print publication:
    November 2013

  • This article proposes a new framework for determining the availability of proprietary remedies for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It examines the alternative and conflicting arguments put forward in the leading cases, and suggests that they fail to justify their conclusions, either under- or over-estimating the incidence of proprietary relief for fiduciary disloyalty. These shortcomings appear to be the result of inappropriate reliance on familiar equitable formulae, in particular the routine equitable duty to account, the seemingly inescapable maxim that “equity treats as done that which ought to be done”, and the potent rules of tracing.

Page 1 of 2