Mr Tom Boardman was the solicitor of a family trust.[1] The trust assets include a 27% holding in a company (a textile company with factories in Coventry, Nuneaton and in Australia through a subsidiary). Boardman was concerned about the accounts of the company, and thought that to protect the trust a majority shareholding is required. He and a beneficiary, Tom Phipps, went to a shareholders' general meeting of the company. They realised together that they could turn the company around. They suggested to a trustee (Mr Fox) that it would be desirable to acquire a majority shareholding, but Fox said it was completely out of the question for the trustees to do so. With the knowledge of the trustees, Boardman and Phipps decided to purchase the shares themselves. They bought a majority stake. But they did not obtain the fully informed consent of all the beneficiaries. By capitalizing some of the assets, the company made a distribution of capital without reducing the values of the shares. The trust benefited by this distribution £47,000, while Boardman and Phipps made £75,000. But then John Phipps, another beneficiary, sued for their profits, alleging a conflict of interest.
Judgment
High Court
Wilberforce J held that Boardman was liable to pay for his breach of the duty of loyalty by not accounting to the company for that amount of money, but that he could be paid for his services.
Court of Appeal
Lord Denning MR, Russell LJ and Pearson LJ upheld Wilberforce J's decision and held that Boardman and Phipps had breached his duty of loyalty, which arose as they had become self-appointed agents representing the trust, by putting themselves in a conflict of interest. They were therefore liable for the profits earned. However, they would be able to retain a generous remuneration for the services he performed. On this, Lord Denning MR said (at 1021)
Ought Boardman and Tom Phipps to be allowed remuneration for their work and skill in these negotiations? The plaintiff is ready to concede it, but in case the other beneficiaries are interested in the account, I think we should determine it on principle. This species of action is an action for restitution such as Lord Wright described in the Fibrosa case. The gist of it is that the defendant has unjustly enriched himself, and it is against conscience that he should be allowed to keep the money. The claim for repayment cannot, however, be allowed to extend further than the justice of the case demands. If the defendant has done valuable work in making the profit, then the court in its discretion may allow him a recompense. It depends on the circumstances. If the agent has been guilty of any dishonesty or bad faith, or surreptitious dealing, he might not be allowed any remuneration or reward. But when, as in this case, the agents acted openly and above board, but mistakenly, then it would be only just that they should be allowed remuneration. As the judge said:
"it would be inequitable now for the beneficiaries to step in and take the profit without paying for the skill and labour which has produced it."
I think there should be a generous remuneration allowed to the agents.
House of Lords
The majority of the House of Lords (Lords Cohen, Guest and Hodson) held that there was a possibility of a conflict of interest, because the solicitor and beneficiary might have come to Boardman for advice as to the purchases of the shares. They owed fiduciary duties (to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest) because they were negotiating over use of the trust's shares. The majority disagreed about the nature and relevance of information used by Boardman and Phipps. Lord Cohen said the information is not truly property and it does not necessarily follow that, because an agent acquired information and opportunity while acting in a fiduciary capacity, he is accountable. His liability to account depends on the facts. His Lordship regarded Boardman to be liable because he acquired the information in the course of the fiduciary relationship and because of the fiduciary relationship. The other two members of the majority, Lord Hodson and Lord Guest, opined that information can constitute property in appropriate circumstances and in the current case, the confidential information acquired can be properly regarded as property of the trust. Therefore, Boardman was speculating with trust property and should be liable. The majority agreed unanimously that liability to account for the profits made by virtue of a fiduciary relationship is strict and does not depend on fraud or absence of bona fides, and so Phipps and Boardman would have to account for their profits. However, they were generously remunerated for their services to the trust.
Lord Upjohn dissented, and held that Phipps and Boardman should not be liable because a reasonable man would not have thought there was any real sensible possibility of a conflict of interest. This is because there is no possibility the trustee would seek Boardman's advice to purchase the shares and at any rate Boardman could have declined to act if given such request.
"And it is a rule of universal application, that no one, having such duties to discharge, shall be allowed to enter into engagements in which he has, or can have, a personal interest conflicting, or which possibly may conflict, with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect."
The phrase "possibly may conflict" requires consideration. In my view it means that the reasonable man looking at the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case would think that there was a real sensible possibility of conflict; not that you could imagine some situation arising which might, in some conceivable possibility in events not contemplated as real sensible possibilities by any reasonable person, result in a conflict."
His Lordship distinguished Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver by restricting Regal Hastings to circumstances concerned with property of which the principals were contemplating a purchase. In the present case, as the purchase of the shares was entirely out of the question, Regal Hastings was said to be inapplicable.
Lord Upjohn also agreed with Lord Cohen that information is not property at all, although equity will restrain its transmission if it has been acquired by a breach of confidence. He said unequivocally that knowledge learnt by a trustee in the course of his duties is not property of the trust and may be used for his own benefit unless it is confidential information which is given to him (i) in circumstances which, regardless of his position as a trustee, would make it a breach of confidence to communicate it to anyone or (ii) in a fiduciary capacity.
In law, a trust refers to a relationship in which the owner of property gives it to a designated entity, usually described as a trustee. The trustee has a duty to safeguard and use the assets of the trust, solely for the benefit of another person or group of persons, until distribution, pursuant to the provisions of the trust. In English common law, the party who entrusts the property is known as the "settlor", the party to whom it is entrusted is known as the "trustee", the party for whose benefit the property is entrusted is known as the "beneficiary", and the entrusted property is known as the "corpus" or "trust property". A testamentary trust is an irrevocable trust established and funded pursuant to the terms of a deceased person's will. An inter vivos trust is a trust created during the settlor's life.
Trustee is a legal term which, in its broadest sense, is a synonym for anyone in a position of trust and so can refer to any individual who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another. A trustee can also be a person who is allowed to do certain tasks but not able to gain income. Although in the strictest sense of the term a trustee is the holder of property on behalf of a beneficiary, the more expansive sense encompasses persons who serve, for example, on the board of trustees of an institution that operates for a charity, for the benefit of the general public, or a person in the local government.
A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.
A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1980] 1 Ch 515 in an English trusts law case. In it Brightman J gave a comprehensive discussion of the duties of trustees in connection with companies whose shares are part of the trust property. Although it is common to hear lawyers refer to "the rule in Bartlett v Barclays Bank", the case only restated law that had been accepted since Speight v Gaunt.
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] 1 All ER 37 is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company. The Court held that a director is in breach of his duties if he takes advantage of an opportunity that the corporation would otherwise be interested in but was unable to take advantage. However the breach could have been resolved by ratification by the shareholders, which those involved neglected to do.
Peso Silver Mines Ltd v Cropper, [1966] S.C.R. 673, is a leading Canadian case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the fiduciary duty of corporate directors, the boundaries of conflict of interest, and the type of damages that may be obtained in cases of wrongful dismissal.
United States trust law is the body of law that regulates the legal instrument for holding wealth known as a trust.
English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is a growing body of legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.
Keech v Sandford[1726] EWHC J76 is a foundational case, deriving from English trusts law, on the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It concerns the law of trusts and has affected much of the thinking on directors' duties in company law. It holds that a trustee owes a strict duty of loyalty so that there can never be a possibility of any conflict of interest.
Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley [1972] 1 WLR 443 is a UK company law case on the corporate opportunities doctrine, and the duty of loyalty from the law of trusts.
Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.
Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers (1854) 1 Paterson 394 is a UK company law case. It concerns the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and in particular, the duty not to engage in self-dealing. It laid down a basic rule that if a director had an interest in a corporate transaction, the transaction is voidable at the company's will, and it is the duty of directors to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.
Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.
Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44 is an English defamation law case, which also concerns some principles of conflict of interest relevant for trusts and company law.
Re Duke of Norfolk’s Settlement Trusts [1982] Ch 61 is an English trusts law case, which confirmed that a court has the inherent jurisdiction to remunerate a trustee.
Guinness plc v Saunders [1989] UKHL 2 is a UK company law case, regarding the power of the company to pay directors. It required that whatever rules exist for payment in the company's articles, they must be strictly observed.
Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270 is an English trusts law case, concerning the scope of discretion of trustees to make investments for the benefit of their members. It held that trustees cannot ignore the financial interests of the beneficiaries.
Constructive trusts in English law are a form of trust created by the English law courts primarily where the defendant has dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner"—but also in other circumstances. The property is held in "constructive trust" for the harmed party, obliging the defendant to look after it. The main factors that lead to a constructive trust are unconscionable dealings with property, profits from unlawful acts, and unauthorised profits by a fiduciary. Where the owner of a property deals with it in a way that denies or impedes the rights of some other person over that property, the courts may order that owner to hold it in constructive trust. Where someone profits from unlawful acts, such as murder, fraud, or bribery, these profits may also be held in constructive trust. The most common of these is bribery, which requires that the person be in a fiduciary office. Certain offices, such as those of trustee and company director, are always fiduciary offices. Courts may recognise others where the circumstances demand it. Where someone in a fiduciary office makes profits from their duties without the authorisation of that office's beneficiaries, a constructive trust may be imposed on those profits; there is a defence where the beneficiaries have authorised such profits. The justification here is that a person in such an office must avoid conflicts of interest, and be held to account should he fail to do so.
The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC)[1993] UKPC 2 was a New Zealand-originated trust law case heard and decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, where it was held that bribe money accepted by a person in a position of trust, can be traced into any property bought and is held on constructive trust for the beneficiary.
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
