This book discusses three subjects: fiduciary relationships of trust and confidence; fiduciary relationships of undue influence, and fiduciary relationships and confidential information. Although the author states that the book’s perspective is Australian, it will be found to be particularly useful to practitioners in the United Kingdom by reason of the apparently equal prominence given to authorities from other jurisdictions, including the U.K., United States, New Zealand and Canada. There is no doubt that this is an area of the law where it is essential to read authorities from other jurisdictions. There is a corresponding danger with this approach. The book sometimes assumes that, where the authorities diverge, they can or should be reconciled, and that the U.K. can be expected to follow developments elsewhere. One obvious example of difference in this field is the remedial constructive trust. The author finds encouragement for the view that England will adopt the remedial constructive trust from the remarks of Lord Mustill (whose name is misspelt throughout the book) in the “otherwise conservative” case of Re Goldcorp. Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 A.C. 74. In fact many of the problems which this area of the law addresses do not admit of one obviously right answer. It is defensible that different jurisdictions should adopt different and incompatible solutions. The balance of justice the court has to strike is commonly between the interests of the plaintiff who is represented in court and the other creditors who are not. It will rarely make any difference to the defendant whether the remedy granted is personal or proprietary.

It is no criticism of the book that sections are already out of date as a result of the decision in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v. Tan [1995] 2 A.C. 378. On the contrary, the numerous cases reported in this field each year show the need for such a book. It may well assist the courts in the resolution of questions which remain, such as the nature of the acts which are sufficient assistance in a breach of trust to attract liability.

Royal Brunei is also notable because Lord Nicholls drew attention to the legal remedies which are available against accessories where there is negligence without dishonesty on their part and thus no equitable claim. These remedies are claims for breach of the duty of care owed to the trustees by professional assisters of the kinds who are commonly sought as defendants when there has been a breach of trust and the money has disappeared. The weakness of these remedies is that those duties may not be enforceable by a personal trustee who has been dishonest. But in many modern commercial frauds the trustee (or recipient of misdirected funds) is a corporation which is itself one of the victims of the frauds of those who control it. In these circumstances the victim trustee corporation can enforce the tortious or contractual duties of care owed to it by the professionals who have honestly but negligently assisted the fraudsters. These remedies can also be enforced by the beneficiaries in suitable cases where the trustee is unable or unwilling to sue. These personal common law remedies are of value against banks and professionals who are insured. The author does include a section on the legal remedies against third parties, but (in common with other commentators) he does not mention these remedies.