only (i) and (iv).

none of the above.

all of the above.

not (ii).

only (ii).

available only when an injunction has already been sought

available in lieu of, or in addition to other specific equitable remedies.

not available in aid of purely equitable rights.

only available in substitution for other specific equitable remedies.

a plaintiff’s claim against a third party defendant will be an abuse of process if brought in a different jurisdiction to the claim against the errant fiduciary.

where an errant fiduciary and a third party defendant are both liable for the same equitable remedy, the plaintiff cannot recover from both defendants and must elect between the defendants.

a plaintiff can only succeed in their claim against either an errant fiduciary or a third party defendant if both defendants are liable for the same equitable remedy.

a plaintiff can obtain one type of equitable remedy from the errant fiduciary and a different type of equitable remedy from a third party defendant.

must first wait for the determination of the legal or equitable wrong complained of.

must, in the interests of fairness and mutuality, first inform the defendant.

is required to disclose to the court all relevant facts and all possible arguments, including those which could be made by the defendant.

does not need to have a legal or equitable cause of action.

Rescission is always available in fiduciary cases regardless of whether

restitutio in integrum is possible

Rescission was available only because the contract was void at common law

could be relied on by an errant fiduciary providing a tortious duty of care was first established by the plaintiff.

could present conceptual challenges when relied on in equitable, specifically fiduciary, claims given the doctrine originates in tort rather than equity. 

could not be relied on by an errant fiduciary if the errant fiduciary also sought an allowance.

could only be relied on in equitable claims for an account of profits because the causation test is the same.