Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd v Ferster

Equitable compensation is not restricted to compensation for losses but may include repayment of unauthorised remuneration and associated payments; the High Court order should not be interpreted narrowly to limit ITC's remedy.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Appellant: Interactive Technology Corporation Limited; Respondent: Jonathan Ferster
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 05 July 2018
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome: appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Equitable Compensation, Remedies, Director's Duties

Fiduciary Law Company Law Equity Breach of Fiduciary Duty Equitable Compensation Remedies Director's Duties

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Interactive Technology Corporation Limited

Appellant

Jonathan Ferster

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether equitable compensation is limited to compensation for losses or includes recovery of unauthorised remuneration and associated payments
2 Interpretation of the High Court order regarding equitable compensation

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

Second and third declarations in the High Court order are deleted and replaced with a declaration permitting ITC to contend for repayment of unauthorised remuneration, associated PAYE and National Insurance, and losses including costs, interest, and penalties.
Costs orders varied as sought by ITC.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.