The Court held that in calculating pre-judgment interest on an account of profits, equitable disgorgement principles require interest to run from when profits were actually received by the errant fiduciary, not deferred until the project is completed in accounting terms; a proportionate allocation methodology based on expert analysis was accepted as a reasonable approximation where precise line-by-line analysis was impractical. On costs, the Court applied a broad-brush reduction (70% for the first period, 85% for the second) to reflect separable issues on which the successful plaintiffs failed or abandoned claims, while awarding Lahoud interest on costs and granting a full s 242 Corporations Act indemnity from the company to the derivative action applicant for the gap between costs incurred and costs recovered, on the basis that the proceeding produced a substantial financial benefit for the company.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.