Abstract:
The controversial rule in Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Company of Canada [1934] 3 DLR 465 was recently introduced into the local jurisprudence on equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty. In Then Khek Koon v Arjun Permanand Samtani [2014] 1 SLR 245, the High Court accepted Brickenden as authority for the proposition that if a fiduciary is in one of the well-established categories of fiduciaries and has committed a culpable breach of his core duties of honesty and fidelity, he is liable to pay equitable compensation even if but-for causation cannot be proved. This note critically reviews the importation and the interpretation of the Brickenden rule by the High Court.