This chapter discusses the account of profits, disgorgement, and other forms of gain-based relief. It will consider the difference between compensation, restitution and disgorgement. It will then consider the account of profits, and the operation of bars to relief and other limiting factors.

The primary rationales of the account of profits have been identified as deterrence and prophylaxis (that is, preventing a defendant from gaining from wrongdoing). Deterrence looks not to the dispute in question, but to the future conduct of the specific defendant (specific deterrence) and the future conduct of other potential defendants (general deterrence). By stripping the defendant of her gain (or part of her gain), the defendant (and other potential defendants) will be deterred from engaging in similar conduct in the future. It is argued that the remedies discussed in this chapter have a deterrent flavour.

A remedy is specific when the plaintiff seeks to get the court to coerce the defendant into doing (or not doing) a particular thing. The word ‘coercion’ is used advisedly. The court orders the defendant to do (or not to do) the particular thing, and if the defendant refuses to comply, the court may use measures such as imprisonment, sequestration and fines to encourage compliance with its order. The two most important examples of specific relief in Australia are the decree of specific performance and the injunction. This chapter will consider specific performance, and the next chapter will consider injunctions. Specific performance relates to ordering the defendant to comply with the terms of a contract, but injunctions may be ordered across private law and beyond. Specific performance is exclusively equitable, and generally operates in relation to a common law cause of action; namely, breach of contract.

This chapter deals with the availability of the other specific remedy: the injunction. As with specific performance, injunctions are a coercive remedy originating in equity. The court orders the defendant to do something (or to refrain from doing something) and the defendant must obey this order or be in contempt of court. Again, if the defendant does not comply, the court may use measures such as imprisonment, sequestration, and fines to encourage compliance with its order.

However, in contrast to specific performance, injunctions apply to many situations, not just contract or contract-like obligations, and they protect many private law rights, including rights in land, goods and other property, economic rights, the right to bodily integrity, the right to reputation, the right to privacy, and contractual rights. They may also be used in support of public law rights.

Most of the remedies discussed in this book are personal remedies (apart from the proprietary consequences of rescission). Personal remedies, as the name suggests, are directed at the person of the defendant. The defendant must comply with the court order. By contrast, proprietary remedies are directed at property to which the defendant holds title, not to the person.

Proprietary remedies are difficult to allocate on a functional basis. We have not attempted to do so, as the rationales behind the imposition of proprietary remedies vary, and the criteria for their award are uncertain and contested.

It should be noted at the outset that this chapter does not purport to provide an exhaustive account of proprietary remedies. It is presumed that the reader already has a knowledge of trust law and the principles governing the creation of trusts and equitable liens. What follows is an overview from a remedies perspective.

The availability of proprietary remedies in common law is limited. Even where the defendant has committed a proprietary tort, the common law tends to award damages as a remedy. There is no rei vindicatio, or ability of a plaintiff to demand the return of property from a defendant, at common law. Consequently, the proprietary remedies we discuss in this chapter are equitable in origin.

Specific performance typically enforces a contract but also can be invoked to enforce a ‘promise’ enforceable under principles of estoppel. Equitable remedies like specific performance are discretionary. The inadequacy of damages is a particularly significant consideration in determining if specific performance should be granted, although there is lack of complete consensus whether the inadequacy of damages is a jurisdictional hurdle or another discretionary factor.

This chapter deals with accounts of profits and other forms of gain-based relief. The rationale for accounts of profit have been said to be deterrence and prophylaxis.

The placement of reasonable fee awards in this chapter may be regarded as controversial. ‘Reasonable fee’ refers to a court-ordered monetary award reflecting what the plaintiff would have asked for to permit the defendant’s wrongdoing. They are generally awarded for intellectual property breaches, proprietary torts and breaches of negative covenants. The rationale for these awards is unclear, but Barnett and Harder have argued such awards are gain-based, so we place them in this chapter.