In R. v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen, the Supreme Court abolished “joint enterprise liability”, thus removing the need for a doctrine that used to temper the harshness of joint enterprise: the “fundamental difference” rule. The Supreme Court nevertheless allowed this rule to linger on in the form of an “overwhelming supervening act” doctrine. That doctrine has led to the creation of yet another: an “escalation” doctrine. We argue that there is no place in the post-Jogee law of complicity for doctrines based on fundamental difference, overwhelming supervening acts or escalation. This is no mere semantic quibble. It has significant implications for the way in which complicity law should be applied, especially in homicide cases.

In Novoship (UK) Ltd. v Nikitin, a unanimous Court of Appeal held that an account of profits can be granted against a third party who dishonestly assists a breach of fiduciary duty. This raises fundamental questions as to the status of gain-based relief in relation to secondary wrongs. An account of profits reflects the imperatives of fiduciary duty and it is questionable whether the remedy should be extended to a stranger to that relationship. This article will analyse the spectrum of secondary liability and suggest an appropriate demarcation of compensation and disgorgement.