Remedies tutoring

Make sense of Remedies.

Remedies brings together contract, tort and equity and asks a precise question: what relief can the client obtain, and how is it established? It rewards a disciplined structure more than almost any subject. With the right method it becomes one of the clearer subjects to sit.

Browse all subjects New · Practice bank: 85 exam-style drills across every Remedies topic plus 15 integrated exam scenarios, each with Pass and H1 model answers and examiner's comments. → New · Module guides: eight one page guides to the whole subject, the rules and the cases with worked examples, plus the eight flowcharts. →
8 module guides9 flowcharts85 drills15 exam scenarios
Start at module 1Practice bank

The subject, module by module

Study Remedies one module at a time

Each module has a guide, a decision flowchart and a drill bank with Pass and H1 model answers and examiner's comments. Work them in order or jump to the module your course is up to.

1Vindication and the heads of damage
Why damages are awarded and the heads they come underGuide · Flowchart · Drills (10)
2Contract damages
The expectation measure, the limits and the defective works casesGuide · Flowchart · Drills (15)
3Tort damages
The measures for land, goods and misstatements, and remotenessGuide · Flowchart · Drills (10)
4ACL damages
The statutory gateway, causation and the flexible measureGuide · Flowchart · Drills (10)
5Equitable compensation
Restoring the trust or the beneficiary after a fiduciary breachGuide · Flowchart · Drills (10)
6Specific relief
Specific performance and injunctions, with the barsGuide · Flowchart · Drills (10)
7Damages in lieu and user awards
Money in substitution for an injunction, and the fee for a use takenGuide · Flowchart · Drills (10)
8Gain based relief and rescission
Stripping gains and unwinding transactionsGuide · Flowchart · Drills (10)
★Exam tier: 15 integrated scenarios in the format of the real paperExam tier

How to use this subject

1 · Read the guide. Each module has a one page guide with the rules, the cases and a dissected worked example.
2 · Plan on the flowchart. Each module has a decision flowchart. Plan the answer on the chart before writing a word.
3 · Drill the bank. Write your answer, then compare it against the Pass and H1 models and the examiner's comments. The method behind all of it is at six shapes and one twist.

The challenge

Where students get stuck

A single set of facts can raise several remedies at once, including damages, equitable compensation, an account of profits, specific performance and an injunction. Marks are commonly lost when students address them together rather than in turn. Each remedy needs its own analysis: the rule, the authority, the application of each element and bar, then a reasoned choice and election. The measure of damages is a frequent difficulty, particularly expectation and reliance, the date of assessment, remoteness and mitigation.

How I help

I teach the structure that strong answers use. Each remedy is treated as its own short problem: issue, rule, authority, application and conclusion. We work through the damages measures until the calculations are routine, and practise past problems so the relevant remedies are identified quickly. The aim is a clear answer grounded in authority rather than a choice of remedy made by instinct.

The method in action

See the four steps applied to a real Remedies problem

A worked H1 answer against a Pass answer, dissected line by line, with one to try yourself. Tap to open.

The method in action

One method, every problem

A reliable answer under exam pressure comes from a fixed routine, not from inspiration. The same four steps run every argument. A small set of rule shapes tells each argument what it has to do. Below is the routine, then a worked problem that puts it to work. The method is the same for any problem.

The four steps, every time

The precise thing you have to decide. Name it before you state any law, so the marker knows what each paragraph is for.
The principle that decides the issue. It always comes from a section or a case, and every rule is tied to its authority.
Run the facts through the rule, point by point. Do not describe the facts on their own.
Answer the issue, stated only as firmly as the facts allow. Finish one issue before the next begins.

Know the shape of the rule

What it means

A rule that is a single statement with no working parts. It either covers the facts or it does not.

What it makes you do

State it and apply it in a sentence or two. Then move on. Do not build machinery the rule does not have.

What it means

Several requirements and every one must be met. One unticked box and the whole rule fails, however strong the rest of the page looks.

What it makes you do

Run every item in turn. Then give the quiet item the closest look. This is because strength on three items cannot repair a fourth.

What it means

One ring holding several keys. The rule is satisfied if any one key turns the lock. Every key opens the same door.

What it makes you do

Claiming? Turn your best key and mention the spares. Defending? You must strip every key off the ring. This is because ruling out one key proves nothing about the others.

What it means

Steps applied in a fixed order, where each step conditions the next. The order is part of the law. Step two does not exist until you have stood on step one.

What it makes you do

Take the stairs in order and show at each step why the next is reached. Where a step is arguable, conclude it and bridge with an if. If the direction is made out, did the board act on it?

What it means

One standard read through several factors. No single factor decides and none is required. A factor can be missing without changing where the needle settles.

What it makes you do

Argue several factors and argue them both ways. Then read the needle. In law the facts are the magnet. The needle settles differently in every case. Ignore the factors the facts never engage, because raising a dead factor wastes time and can cost marks.

What it means

Two competing interests weighed against each other. The conclusion is wherever the scales come to rest.

What it makes you do

Weigh like a shopkeeper. Start with the heaviest weight on each side and move to and fro, answering each point with the other side's best. Fine tune last and stop at close enough. The scales never sit perfectly level. State the balance only as firmly as they show.

What it means

Not a seventh shape. A fold that any shape can carry. The rule applies unless a defined exception is made out. Sometimes it holds as a default until it is displaced.

What it makes you do

State the rule first and give it its authority. Then test only the exceptions the facts make live, each on its own requirements. And always ask who must untwist it. This is because the party relying on the exception usually carries that burden. Planted material that merely looks bad is often legally insufficient to displace the default.

See the six shapes and one twist →

Worked example

The factsNadia runs a courier business through QuickCo Pty Ltd, of which she is the sole director and shareholder. She sets up a second company, HoldCo, to own the delivery vans, which HoldCo then leases to QuickCo. A QuickCo driver negligently injures a pedestrian. QuickCo "has no assets" and is wound up. The injured pedestrian argues that Nadia and HoldCo should be liable, because QuickCo was "just Nadia in another form" and was "deliberately kept asset poor".
The full answer

The pedestrian wants to reach Nadia or HoldCo. Each step is taken in turn.

Is QuickCo's liability separate from Nadia and HoldCo?

A company is a separate legal person, and its members and directors are not liable for its debts (Salomon v Salomon). QuickCo's liability is QuickCo's own. Incorporation exists so the people behind a company are not personally liable. On the general rule, neither Nadia nor HoldCo is liable.

Does keeping QuickCo "asset poor" justify piercing the veil?

The veil is pierced only for a sham or facade, or where a company is used to evade an existing obligation (Gilford Motor v Horne). Mere undercapitalisation or a group structure is not enough (Briggs v James Hardie). QuickCo was "deliberately kept asset poor", but that is lawful structuring. The "just Nadia in another form" point is really a complaint about sole ownership, which Salomon permits.

Is HoldCo liable for the driver's negligence?

A separate company is liable for the driver's negligence only if it was the employer or QuickCo was its agent (Salomon v Salomon). Nothing on the facts shows either. Liability follows the entity that employed the driver. That was QuickCo.

What is the result?

QuickCo alone is liable, and it has no assets. The veil is unlikely to be pierced. This is because a group structure that keeps one company asset poor is lawful, and falls short of a sham.

Now the same answer, dissected step by step.

The pedestrian wants to reach Nadia or HoldCo. Each step is taken in turn.

Sets out the issues and the order they are taken.

General rule

Is QuickCo's liability separate from Nadia and HoldCo?

A company is a separate legal person, and its members and directors are not liable for its debts (Salomon v Salomon). QuickCo's liability is QuickCo's own. Incorporation exists so the people behind a company are not personally liable. On the general rule, neither Nadia nor HoldCo is liable.

States Salomon and applies it before reaching for exceptions.

Narrow exceptions

Does keeping QuickCo "asset poor" justify piercing the veil?

The veil is pierced only for a sham or facade, or where a company is used to evade an existing obligation (Gilford Motor v Horne). Mere undercapitalisation or a group structure is not enough (Briggs v James Hardie). QuickCo was "deliberately kept asset poor", but that is lawful structuring. The "just Nadia in another form" point is really a complaint about sole ownership, which Salomon permits.

Tests the actual exceptions against the facts rather than arguing fairness.

Checklist

Is HoldCo liable for the driver's negligence?

A separate company is liable for the driver's negligence only if it was the employer or QuickCo was its agent (Salomon v Salomon). Nothing on the facts shows either. Liability follows the entity that employed the driver. That was QuickCo.

Disposes of HoldCo on employment and agency.

What is the result?

QuickCo alone is liable, and it has no assets. The veil is unlikely to be pierced. This is because a group structure that keeps one company asset poor is lawful, and falls short of a sham.

Concludes on the general rule and why the exceptions fail.

The full answer

QuickCo is a separate company, so normally Nadia is not liable because of Salomon's case. But she set it up to have no assets and kept all the money in HoldCo, which is unfair to the pedestrian. The court can lift the corporate veil when a company is used to avoid liability, so Nadia and HoldCo should be liable. The pedestrian wins.

This is a pass-level answer. Click each line to see where the marks are lost.

QuickCo is a separate company, so normally Nadia is not liable (Salomon).
States Salomon correctly, then abandons it for a fairness argument.
She kept all the money in HoldCo, which is unfair to the pedestrian.
Treats "kept asset poor" as automatically wrong, missing that undercapitalisation and group structuring are lawful (Walker v Wimborne).
The court can lift the veil when a company is used to avoid liability.
Asserts a broad exception without confining it to a sham or the evasion of an existing obligation (Gilford Motor; Jones v Lipman).
So Nadia and HoldCo should be liable.
Makes HoldCo liable with no basis such as agency or employment.

Spending your time under pressure

Read & plan8 min
Specific performance11 min
Discretionary bars11 min
Injunction11 min
Review5 min

A workable time split for a 45 minute problem. Adjust it to suit your exam.

Now try one

Your problemA buyer contracts to buy "a rare vintage car, one of only three in the world", for $500,000. The seller refuses to deliver, offering the deposit back plus $50,000 and saying "damages will do". The buyer wants the car. The seller has also "begun stripping rare parts" off it to sell separately.

Work it yourself using IRAC. Fill in each step, then submit to self-check and reveal the model answer. This is a quick check for the essentials. The full practice bank, with Pass and H1 exemplars and examiner's comments, is live.

Model answer

Issue. Whether the buyer can get specific performance of the car, and an injunction to stop the stripping.

Rule. Specific performance is available where damages are inadequate, as for unique goods (Dougan v Ley). An injunction may restrain a continuing breach where damages are inadequate (Bendal v Mirvac).

Application. The car is "one of only three in the world", so damages are inadequate and "damages will do" is wrong. The "stripping" of rare parts is irreversible, so an injunction should restrain it.

Conclusion. The buyer is likely to get both. This is because the car is unique and the harm from stripping cannot be undone.

Common questions

Remedies tutoring FAQ

Do you cover common law and equitable remedies?

Yes. Damages, equitable compensation, specific performance, injunctions, account of profits and restitution. Plus how to choose between them.

My problem answers sprawl. Can you help?

Yes. We treat each remedy as its own mini IRAC. The answer becomes structured and easy to mark.

Can you help right before the exam?

Yes. A focused session works through past problems. Book early. Slots fill fast.

Related subjects: Contracts, Torts, Corporations Law. See all subjects, or read the publication on practice hypotheticals.

Get on top of Remedies.

Step through the interactive method for this subject and see exactly what earns the marks.

Explore all subjects