Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sixth edition of Equity and Trusts: Commentary and Materials builds on the strengths of the previous editions, and maintains its focus on prefacing case and statutory extracts by statements of principle to guide the student, and following extracts by comments and questions that both test the readers understanding and develop aspects of extracted material. Every effort has been made to make the work as accessible to the student as possible in the main by ensuring that most extracts are not unduly lengthy while at the same time focusing, chiefly via questions and commentary, on the learning outcomes essential to the study of equity and trusts.This new edition includes extracts from important High Court judgments delivered since early 2011, including Sidhu v Van Dyke on the topic of estoppel, and Byrnes v Kendle on the issue of certainty of intention for trusts. The Canadian Supreme Courts 2011 judgment in Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v Alberta is also extracted at length as a vehicle to investigate the challenges in applying fiduciary notions in the public law sphere. Other significant Australian High Court decisions, including Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd on unconscionable dealing, and Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd on penalty clauses, are the subject of briefer extracts and commentary in the notes. The topic of constructive trusts, moreover, sees expanded commentary in view of the issues raised in Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) and FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC, each of which is extracted in the notes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".