Prospective Joint Venturers and Fiduciary Duties: A Comment on the SCNZ decision in Chirnside v Fay

Dorsett, SG

Prospective Joint Venturers and Fiduciary Duties: A Comment on the SCNZ decision in Chirnside v Fay

Dorsett, SG

Permalink

Publisher:: LexisNexis Australia
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Equity, 2007, 2007, 2 (1), pp. 221 - 228
Issue Date:: 2007-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2009006573OK.pdf		25.56 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Dorsett, SG https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3541-5164	en_US
dc.date.issued	2007-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Equity, 2007, 2007, 2 (1), pp. 221 - 228	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1833-2137	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/15961
dc.description.abstract	This comment considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand on the fiduciary duties owed by prospective joint venturers. As one of the first cases concerning equity heard by the new court, it provides an interesting insight into the possible approach of the court to this area of law. The comment first looks to the imposition of liability and examines the different approaches taken by the court, focusing on the problems of imposing liability in early pre-contractual joint venture cases. The comment then considers the impact these problems may have had on remedy, highlighting the remedial flexibility which characterises equity jurisdiction in New Zealand. In September 2006 the Supreme Court of New Zealand handed down its judgment in Chirnside v Fay, a case concerning the nature of the obligations between joint venturers and attendant remedies for breach of fiduciary duty.1 Those interested in equity matters may remember that the 2004 Court of Appeal decision in Chirnside attracted some attention, most notably for the courts somewhat controversial application of a loss of chance analysis to the calculation of quantum.2 The Supreme Court decision, therefore, was eagerly awaited to see whether that court would uphold such an analysis or substitute a more orthodox approach. Chirnside v Fay is one of the first cases determined by the new Supreme Court which falls squarely within the area of equity.3 Chirnside v Fay was, therefore, a chance to gauge that courts likely approach to equity jurisdiction and no better case could be found than one whose subject matter lies at the heart of equity: the fiduciary obligation.	en_US
dc.publisher	LexisNexis Australia	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Equity	en_US
dc.title	Prospective Joint Venturers and Fiduciary Duties: A Comment on the SCNZ decision in Chirnside v Fay	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.citation.edition	2007	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.edition	2007	en_US
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.volume	2	en_US

Abstract:

This comment considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand on the fiduciary duties owed by prospective joint venturers. As one of the first cases concerning equity heard by the new court, it provides an interesting insight into the possible approach of the court to this area of law. The comment first looks to the imposition of liability and examines the different approaches taken by the court, focusing on the problems of imposing liability in early pre-contractual joint venture cases. The comment then considers the impact these problems may have had on remedy, highlighting the remedial flexibility which characterises equity jurisdiction in New Zealand. In September 2006 the Supreme Court of New Zealand handed down its judgment in Chirnside v Fay, a case concerning the nature of the obligations between joint venturers and attendant remedies for breach of fiduciary duty.1 Those interested in equity matters may remember that the 2004 Court of Appeal decision in Chirnside attracted some attention, most notably for the courts somewhat controversial application of a loss of chance analysis to the calculation of quantum.2 The Supreme Court decision, therefore, was eagerly awaited to see whether that court would uphold such an analysis or substitute a more orthodox approach. Chirnside v Fay is one of the first cases determined by the new Supreme Court which falls squarely within the area of equity.3 Chirnside v Fay was, therefore, a chance to gauge that courts likely approach to equity jurisdiction and no better case could be found than one whose subject matter lies at the heart of equity: the fiduciary obligation.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/15961