Search

The concept of equitable vicarious liability will be unfamiliar to many Australian lawyers. Vicarious liability is of enduring significance in the law of tort but is rarely invoked in the context of equitable wrongdoing. Yet English courts are now comfortable applying vicarious liability to equitable wrongs, and recent dicta of the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of New South Wales suggest that Australian law might follow suit. This article considers whether such a development should be encouraged. It argues that a doctrine of equitable vicarious liability would be both justified and principled, in that it would fill a gap in the law, without creating incompatibility with equity's existing approach to determining liability. However, it doubts the strength of the authorities that have sparked these developments, contending that the evidence of vicarious liability being applied by the Court of Chancery, cited by majorities of the House of Lords and the High Court of Australia, has been misunderstood., CONTENTS I Introduction 43 II What Is Vicarious Liability? 48 III An Equitable Ancestry of Vicarious Liability? 50 A Brydges v Branfill 51 B Fusion 57 IV A Role for [...]

INTRODUCTION I. THEORIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING A. Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 B. Supervised Release C. Retributive Theory of Revocation 1. Sentencing Commission 2. United States Supreme Court 3. United [...], Revocation of community supervision is a defining feature of American criminal law. Nearly 4.5 million people in the United States are on parole, probation, or supervised release, and 1/3 eventually have their supervision revoked, sending 350,000 to prison each year. Academics, activists, and attorneys warn that "mass supervision" has become a powerful engine of mass incarceration. This is the first Article to study theories of punishment in revocation of community supervision, focusing on the federal system of supervised release. Federal courts apply a primarily retributive theory of revocation, aiming to sanction defendants for their "breach of trust." However, the structure, statute, and purpose of supervised release all reflect a utilitarian design justified solely by deterrence and incapacitation, not retribution. A utilitarian approach to revocation would not just be a theoretical change, but also would have a real-world impact by shortening prison terms, mitigating racial bias, and ending consecutive sentencing. While scholars view courts as the government branch most protective of criminal defendants, the judiciary has played a key role in expanding the state's power to punish through retributive revocation. Judges may feel a personal stake in sanctioning disrespect of their authority, yet they should revoke supervised release only to deter and incapacitate.

CONTENTS I Introduction II A Paucity of Substantive Content A The Duty to Avoid Potential Conflicts Operates Differently from the Duty to Avoid Actual Conflicts B Remedial Advantage of Claiming [...], This article reviews the fiduciary duty to avoid actual conflicts. It argues that the duty to avoid actual conflicts adds limited substantive value to fiduciary accountability. Its present form has also contributed to widespread misconception of what should be expected of an unfortunate fiduciary who finds themselves in such a position. In this respect, we propose that many of the modern scenarios involving actual conflicts of duties or conflicts of duties and interests are better analysed not in terms of conflict avoidance but in terms of conflict management. Our analysis paves the way for thoughtfully working out what the fiduciaries' duties are in cases of actual conflict.

I Introduction A poem, the so-called New Critics (1) contend, is 'detached from the author at bitch and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it and [...], In Byrnes v Kendle, the High Court was invited to decide the relevance of subjective intention in determining whether an express trust has been created. It held that the legal effect of a document is not ascertained by extrinsic evidence as to the subjective intentions of its parties, but rather by an objective construction of its words. The case overturns Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) v Jolliffe to the extent that it stood for the proposition that a secret intention can contradict a written trust instrument, such as the disputed deeds of trust in Byrnes v Kendle. In reaching this conclusion, their Honours explained the similar and interrelated qualities of contract and trust, and relied on the objective theory of contract to establish an objective test for intention in relation to a declaration of trust. The Court, however, declined to establish whether the principles for finding the requisite intention of a trust wholly follow the objective theory of contract. Despite reliance on the objective theory, the Court has not explicitly established an objective theory of trust. This awaits further articulation and support from future High Court cases.

B. TRUST CASES (IN WHICH THE TRIBE OR A TRIBAL MEMBER ALLEGED FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) The interplay of plenary authority and reserved autonomy, which has [...]

[This article considers the proper relationship between Barnes v Addy claims and the indefeasibility of Torrens title. In some recent Australian cases, including Farah Constructions Pry Ltd v Say-Dee Pty [...]

INTRODUCTION I have a story to tell. A story with several lessons--some familiar, some novel. This story reflects the rapid pace of change in today's securities markets. It reflects the [...]