THE APPOINTMENT OF EQUITABLE RECEIVERS: APPLICATION OF RULES OR EXERCISE OF PURE DISCRETION?
AbstractThe cases purporting to apply the rules developed by the courts since the turn of the century to govern appointment of equitable receivers for the enforcement of judgments are often conflicting inter se or incomplete in analysis. A recent response to the unsatisfactory state of this area of creditor-debtor law has been to jettison the rules and revert to untrammelled discretion. The thesis of this article is that a proper understanding and application of the rules would provide the desired flexibility. It would render the recent reversion to pure discretion redundant and would promote greater certainty and consistency in decision making than currently exists or would exist if the appointment of equitable receivers was again to become purely discretionary.
Download data is not yet available.