appellant.7 There is no suggestion that the Litigation Trust has
already recovered 100 per cent of the losses it is entitled to claim.
 To the extent that the appellant raises the spectre of
beneficiaries of the Litigation Trust achieving double recovery in
the future if they receive benefits from the Litigation Trust’s
collection of the judgment against him and then are successful in
the Class Actions against him, this is not an objection to the
judgment in this action for the reasons set out above.
 As the trial judge noted, it is in the recovery stage of the
Class Actions that any issue of double recovery would have to be
raised to the extent that members of the class attempt to recover
damages already recovered through the Litigation Trust. For that
issue to even emerge, the appellant would first have to pay the
judgment granted against him in this action and then the plaintiffs
in the Class Actions would have to fail to appropriately credit any
distributions they receive. Neither precondition has occurred.
Speculating on whether they will is inappropriate here. The point
is that the rule against double recovery does not assist the appellant in resisting the granting of the judgment under appeal.
 As an alternative basis to his finding that the prospect of
double recovery did not stand as a bar to the respondent’s action,
the trial judge interpreted the Plan to limit Class Action recoveries
against the appellant to $150 million; thus, the overlap of claims
would only be to the extent of $150 million, and not to the entirety
of the respondent’s claim. The appellant argues that the trial
judge misinterpreted the Plan, which does not limit the Class
Action claims against him.
 Any error in the trial judge’s interpretation of the Plan in
this respect was immaterial. He advanced the point as an alternative
only to the main point that the prospect of later recoveries in the
Class Actions could not stand as a bar to the appellant’s liability
to pay damages in this action.
 I would therefore not give effect to this ground of appeal.
( v) The trial judge applied the correct principles of
 Given that the trial judge properly found causation of
a recognizable form of loss to SFC, the measurement of that loss fell
squarely within the trial judge’s broad powers to assess damages.
7 The appellant clarified in oral argument that double recovery was raised to
avoid judgment against the appellant, not to reduce any damage award
made against him. Indeed, the appellant did not point to any recoveries
that had been made against him.