The doctrine in Baumgartner v Baumgartner – the joint endeavour principle – is now a firmly entrenched feature of Australian equity jurisprudence. However, substantial uncertainties remain as to its remedial operation. It is unclear when the principle can override other doctrines, such as resulting trusts and equitable estoppel, in providing a remedy. It is also unclear if the quantum and form of such a remedy can be determined in accordance with legal principle, including where interested third parties are present. These obscurities have led to significant academic criticism of the doctrine. This article argues that these uncertainties can be resolved by attention to the minimum equity rule: the notion that equity will only grant the minimum remedy necessary to relieve the conscience of the defendant. In so arguing, the joint endeavour principle is upheld, contrary to the academic commentary, as an example, par excellence, of the principled development of the law.

Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.