The place of Barnes v Addy in modern Australian commercial law

© 2004 Stewart MaidenOutline of Argument: This thesis describes two equitable causes of action: 1. the action for culpable* receipt of property applied in breach of fiduciary duty; and 2. the action for culpable assistance in breach of fiduciary duty. The paper is particularly concerned with the role of those two actions in Australian commercial law. The objective of the work is positive, not normative. It aims to describe the existence and operation of each of the actions, and the remedies available when a plaintiff successfully proves them. It adds to our understanding of the Australian law by identifying and explaining the relevant and binding authorities, mapping a path through the thicket of conflicting cases which presently plague practitioners. Part one of the paper introduces the argument. Part two briefly describes the legal wrongs to which the actions can respond. Part three sets out the causes of action at length. First, it describes the relationship between the actions and the wider realm of legal responses to wrongs involving fiduciary duties, particularly those in property and unjust enrichment. It then goes on to examine the constituent elements of each cause of action, and analyse their recent evolution. Part four of the paper sents out the remedies which a plainriff can seek. As the actions and the remedies which respond to them are equitable, the courts have a wide-ranging discretion in deciding whether, and how to apply the available remedies. The final section of part four examines the existence of that discretion and ezplains some of the factors relevant to its exercise. The thesis concludes that the two causes of action are powerful, flexible equitable actions which remain extremely relevant to modern Australian commercial law