| Peskin v Anderson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Full case name | (1) Bruce Peskin (2) Kevin Milner John Anderson & Others |
| Decided | 14 December 2000 |
| Citations | [2000] EWCA Civ 326, [2001] 2 BCLC 1 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Simon Brown LJ Mummery LJ Latham LJ |
| Case opinions | |
| Mummery LJ | |
| Keywords | |
| Directors' duties | |
Peskin v Anderson [2000] EWCA Civ 326 is a UK company law case concerning directors' duties under English law.
Former members of the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) sued the directors for failing to disclose that they had plans to demutualise. They claimed that they could have received £35,000 had they stayed in the club, but had given up their membership. They claimed that the directors had breached a duty owed to them as shareholders to inform them of the upcoming demutualisation plan.
The RAC applied to have the claims struck out as having no prospect of success as directors did not owe a duty to individual shareholders. The RAC succeeded in having the claims struck out at first instance before Neuberger J, and the claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The only judgment was given by Mummery LJ.
Although there were several grounds in the appeal, the main proposition for which the judgment is traditionally cited is that directors do not owe a general duty to shareholders, although they may owe a specific duty to a shareholder if there has been an assumption of responsibility. In this case there was no suggestion of such an assumption of responsibility, and so the claims were struck out.
Counsel for the claimants accepted that the fiduciary duties owed by the directors to RAC do not necessarily extend to the individual members, and that, in general, directors do not, solely by virtue of the office of director, owe fiduciary duties to the shareholders, either collectively or individually. The court cited with approval the headnote in Percival v Wright [1902] 2 Ch 421 that:
The directors of a company are not trustees for individual shareholders, and may purchase their shares without disclosing pending negotiations for the sale of the company's undertaking.
In his judgment Mummery LJ noted that the apparently unqualified width of the ruling had, over the course of the previous century, been subjected to increasing judicial, academic and professional critical comment. But that, as a general rule, it was right that directors should not be over-exposed to the risk of multiple legal actions by dissenting minority shareholders.
The existence of fiduciary duties owed by the directors to the company do not however necessarily preclude, in special circumstances, the co-existence of additional duties owed by the directors to individual shareholders. In such cases individual shareholders may bring a direct action (as distinct from a derivative action) against the directors for breach of such duty. The court relied upon Stein v Blake [1998] 1 All ER 724 (at 727D and 729G per Millett LJ) for the principle that a duality of duties may exist. In addition to requiring special circumstances to give rise to such a duty, for a shareholder to have a valid claim breach of such a duty must have caused loss to the shareholder directly (eg. by being induced by a director to part with his shares in the company at an undervalue), as distinct from loss sustained by him by a diminution in the value of his shares (eg. by reason of the misappropriation by a director of the company's assets).
It was affirmed that the fiduciary duties owed to the company arise from the legal relationship between the directors and the company directed and controlled by them. However any fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders do not arise from that legal relationship. They are dependent on establishing a special factual relationship between the directors and the shareholders in any particular case. Events may take place which bring the directors of the company into direct and close contact with the shareholders in a manner capable of generating fiduciary obligations, such as a duty of disclosure of material facts to the shareholders, or an obligation to use confidential information and valuable commercial and financial opportunities, which have been acquired by the directors in that office, for the benefit of the shareholders.
The court referred to examples from other common law jurisdictions where special circumstances had been held to exist which justified the imposition of fiduciary duties on directors to individual shareholders. In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Coleman v Myers [1977] 2 NZLR 225 and in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Brunninghausen v Glavanics [1999] 46 NSWLR 538 fiduciary duties of directors to shareholders were established in the specially strong context of the familial relationships of the directors and shareholders and their relative personal positions of influence in the company concerned.
But on the facts of the case before them, no such special relationship was claimed, and the actions failed.
The Court of Appeal's decision in Peskin v Anderson has generally been treated as authoritative in relation to the principle to which it relates. It has not been doubted in either subsequent judicial decisions or in academic commentary. In Gower and Davies - Principles of Modern Company Law the editors state: "This principle has now been fully accepted in English law as a result of the recent decision in Peskin v Anderson". [1]
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.
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:
The duty of loyalty is often called the cardinal principle of fiduciary relationships, but is particularly strict in the law of trusts. In that context, the term refers to a trustee's duty to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries, and following the terms of the trust. It generally prohibits a trustee from engaging in transactions that might involve self-dealing or even an appearance of conflict of interest. Furthermore, it requires a fiduciary to deal with transparency regarding material facts known to them in interactions with beneficiaries.
Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O'Malley, [1974] SCR 592, is a leading civil case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on corporate director and officer liability.
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533 is a leading English fiduciary law and professional negligence case, concerning a solicitor's duty of care and skill, and the nature of fiduciary duties. The case is globally cited for its definition of a fiduciary and the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship arises.
Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2 is a landmark English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.
In Plus Group Ltd v Pyke[2002] EWCA Civ 370 is a UK company law case concerning the fiduciary duties of directors, and in particular the doctrine concerning corporate opportunities. In the course of his appellate judgment, Lord Justice Sedley, sitting with Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, cast doubt on the correctness of the contract law case, Bell v. Lever Bros
Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant[2007] EWCA Civ 200 is a 2007 UK company law case, concerning the fiduciary duty of directors to avoid conflicts of interest. The timing of the case followed some considerable unrest in the courts about the strictness of the law relating to taking corporate opportunities.
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.
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.
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.
Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd[2010] UKSC 55 is a UK company law case concerning the circumstances by which a transaction at an undervalue would be considered an unauthorised return of capital.
Percival v Wright [1902] 2 Ch 401 is a UK company law case concerning directors' duties, holding that directors only owe duties of loyalty to the company, and not to individual shareholders. This is now codified in the United Kingdom's Companies Act 2006, section 170.
Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd is an Australian company law case concerning the adequacy of consideration paid for shares, as well as on the questions of duty of care and fiduciary duty owed by experts retained in such matters.
Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.
Canadian corporate law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.
Oldham v Kyrris[2003] EWCA Civ 1506 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.
BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2008] 3 SCR 560 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the duties of corporate directors to act in the best interests of the corporation, "viewed as a good corporate citizen". This case introduced the principle of fair treatment as an organizing principle in Canadian corporate law.
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.
Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258 is a leading United Kingdom company law case relating to directors' liability. The case is the principal authority for the proposition that a company cannot make any claim against a director for breach of duty if the acts of the director have been ratified by the members of the company.