In the continuing search for a satisfactory account of the constructive trust, the distinction between so-called “institutional” and “remedial” constructive trusts has become a fixture of English law. While the former is imposed by virtue of the existence of defined factual situations independent of court order, the latter may be granted in a much wider range of circumstances as the court sees fit to do justice or prevent unconscionability. English law accepts only the former. A constructive trust may arise in particular nominate circumstances recognised by law.1 They are also imposed to represent a liability to account in equity, enlivened, usually, by a breach of fiduciary duty. Subject to the defence of the fully-informed consent of the principal, the fiduciary is taken to hold the property for the benefit of the principal upon the moment of receipt.2 Meanwhile, Australia has rejected any meaningful distinction between institutional and remedial constructive trusts.3 The award of a constructive trust by an Australian court includes “both trusts arising by operation of law and remedial trusts”, which “give rise to either an equitable proprietary remedy based on tracing or, whether based on or independently of tracing, an equitable personal remedy to redress unconscionable conduct”.4

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision in The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd (“Game Meats”) provides an especially dramatic embrace of an expansive notion of remedial constructive