Falsifying falsification

Abstract Almost a decade after the UKSC’s decision of AIB v Redler, there remains significant academic criticism and judicial scepticism towards the employment of causal inquiries in equity’s remedial response to trustees’ misapplications of trust property. This article seeks to defend AIB, and the causal principles enunciated therein, from those criticisms. It does so by arguing that the interpretative arguments and normative justifications propounded in the literature in favour of falsification orders rest on shaky foundations. Consequently, it takes the view that the remedial principles espoused in AIB should be broadly accepted as representing equity’s general remedial approach to custodial breaches of trust.