Equitable Compensation for breach of fiduciary duty: Causation and contribution - The High Court dodges a fusion fallacy in Pilmer

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lynch, Andrew en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2010-05-14T07:48:11Z
dc.date.available 2010-05-14T07:48:11Z
dc.date.created 2010-05-14T07:48:11Z en_US
dc.date.issued 2001
dc.date.issued 2001 en_US
dc.identifier 2004004571 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Lynch Andrew 2001, 'Equitable Compensation for breach of fiduciary duty: Causation and contribution - The High Court dodges a fusion fallacy in Pilmer', Butterworths, vol. 29, pp. 173-190. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0814-8589 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6577
dc.publisher Butterworths en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon en_US
dc.title Equitable Compensation for breach of fiduciary duty: Causation and contribution - The High Court dodges a fusion fallacy in Pilmer en_US
dc.parent Australian Bar Review en_US
dc.journal.volume 29 en_US
dc.journal.number en_US
dc.publocation Sydney, Australia en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 173 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 190 en_US
dc.cauo.name LAW.Faculty of law en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 180100 en_US
dc.personcode 990769 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Law en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.staffid 990769 en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record