2010-2023 Oxbridge Notes. law since Boardman v Phipps. Boardman v Phipps (1967) was a classic illustration of the principles set out in Lord Russell's statement. S+QMS^ kUeH|8H4W,G*3R]wHgMY&,*Hu`IcFWB View your signed in personal account and access account management features. The proceedings. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46, [1966] 3 WL R 1009, [1966] 3 All ER 721. The Cambridge Law Journal If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways: Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. With the full knowledge of the trustees, Boardman and Phipps purchased a majority stake of the shares themselves. The strict liability of fiduciaries has been the subject of criticism on the grounds that Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in. They owed fiduciary duties (to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest) because they were negotiating over use of the trust's shares. 31334. No positive wrongdoing is proved or alleged against the appellants but they cannot escape from the consequences of their acts involving liability to the respondent unless they can prove consent.: p. 112A, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellants hold the Lester & Harris shares as constructive trustees and are bound to account to the respondentIn the present case the knowledge and information obtained by Boardman was obtained in the course of the fiduciary position in which he had placed himself. 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. They bought a majority stake. 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.". 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.". strict liability of fiduciaries has been the subject of criticism on the grounds that it is unfair to penalise honest trustees in the same way as guilty trustees and that the strict rule may discourage people from accepting the post. Did Boardman and Tom Phipps breach their duty to avoid a conflict of interest, despite the fact that the company made a profit and they had obtained (some) consent from the beneficiaries? 25% off till end of Feb! 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. They were therefore liable for the profits earned. The majority unanimously agreed that liability to account for the profits due to a fiduciary relationship is strict; it does not depend on fraud or an absence of bona fides. 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. He attended the annual general meeting of Lester & Harris Ltd, a company in which the trust had a substantial shareholding. 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. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. Nicholas Collins, The no-conflict rule: the acceptance of traditional equitable values?, Trusts & Trustees, Volume 14, Issue 4, May 2008, Pages 213224, https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttn009. The proposition of law involved in this case is that no person standing in a fiduciary position, when a demand is made upon him by the person to whom he stands in the fiduciary relationship to account for profits acquired by him by reason of his fiduciary position and by reason of the opportunity and the knowledge, or either, resulting from it, is entitled to defeat the claim upon any ground save that he made profits with the knowledge and assent of the other person.: The appellants obtained knowledge by reason of their fiduciary position and they cannot escape liability by saying that they were acting for themselves and not as agents of the trustees. Mr Boardman (the trust's solicitor) investigated the affairs of the company, initially on behalf of the trust, and gained useful information. endobj stream I think there should be a generous remuneration allowed to the agents. . For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription. Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596. 3 0 obj endobj 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. The solicitor to a family trust (S) and one Beneficiary (B)-there were several-went to the board meeting of a company in which the trust owned shares. On this, Lord Denning MR said (at 1021). Key Points. Oxbridge Notes is operated by Kinsella Digital Services UG. They suggested to Mr Fox, a trustee, that it would be desirable to acquire a majority shareholding, but Fox disagreed. In the present case, as the purchase of the shares was entirely out of the question, Regal Hastings was said to be inapplicable. &Thb;ynxP\ -|tLo9sRx[8-a5& 'vd `f@). To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above. &Thb;ynxP\ -|tLo9sRx[8-a5& 'vd `f@). See below. The only defence available to a person in such a fiduciary position is that he made the profits with the knowledge and assent of the trustees. Published by Oxford University Press. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. The trust benefited by this distribution 47,000, while Boardman and Phipps made 75,000. T he appellant B was a solicitor who acted as an advisor to the trustees. trust. A breach of a fiduciary duty is of strict liability, regardless of their intention Boardman v Phipps 1967 1. Boardman v Phipps (1967) was an example of the application of strict liability. Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. The residuary estate included 8000 shares in J.ester & Harris Ltd., an underperforming private company with issued share capital of 3l),000 1 ordinary shares. It depends on the circumstances. When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews. xksgD2u$N+xH)%"dU &c~m_WMnny|t80^olIv"+E] mv}f"gv UY Fe_go_eu6[xGLBdUS-?b\4?s=}GO0upAQ![*`E"~ This has fuelled a more general debate as to whether the no-conflict rule should be harsh or more flexible. Boardman and Phipps would have to account for their profits, despite the fact they had best intentions and made the Lexter & Harris a profit. This article explores how the dissenting judgment of Lord Upjohn in Boardman v Phipps has been preferred by the lower courts and why the courts have adopted such a position. On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title. The Appellant Phipps was Chairman of this company and Mr. Boardman was one of its directors. Boardman and Tom Phipps, a beneficiary of the trust, attended a general meeting of the company. Boardman v Phipps seems like a more onerous application of rule against an unauthorised profit than that in Regal Hastings, all that is apparently required for a fiduciary to be liable is that ' a reasonable man looking at the relevant facts would think there was a real possibility of . Boardman was a solicitor to trustees of a will trust. 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. His Lordship distinguished Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver by restricting Regal Hastings to circumstances concerned with property of which the principals were contemplating a purchase. ", The phrase "possibly may conflict" requires consideration. The House of Lords maintained the strict rule that historically equity has imposed on a fiduciary. Constructive trusts, unjust enrichment, tracing 2010 Cases, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious academic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. Boardman v Phipps (1967) Michael Bryan; 21. BOARDMAN v PHIPPS. The company made a distribution of capital without reducing the values of the shares. Boardman was speculating with trust property and should be liable. 3 0 obj stream This is a famous case in which John Phipps successfully claimed that, flowing fro. Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways: Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. overrule Boardman v Phipps.3 It should be noted that the majority in Boardman v Phipps were all-too-aware that they were imposing a constructive trust on a person who had acted in good faith. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. Maguire v Makaronis 1997 infers that anyone under a fiduciary obligation must foreshow righteousness of their transactions. <> This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. <> His 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. in. This article explores how the dissenting judgment of Lord Upjohn in Boardman v Phipps has been preferred by the lower courts and why the courts have adopted such a position. <>>> If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutions website, please contact your librarian or administrator. 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. Proprietary relief in Boardman v Phipps 3 the trustees, although Ethel, who suffered from senile dementia, took no active role in the trust affairs at the material time. Lecture notes, lectures 1-10 - Financial Maths for Actuarial Science, Lecture Notes - Psychology: Counseling Psychology Notes (Lecture 1), The effect of s78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Essay, Critical Reflection on my Work Experience, 2019 MCQ 1 answers - Online Multiple Choice Questions, Caso Walmart vs Kmart - RESUMEN DEL TEMA DE LOGISTICA DE OPERACIONES - DSM-5, Syllabus in Social Science and Philosophy, ACCA FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Pocket Notes 2021 22, Mischief Rule, Examples, Advantages, Disadvantages and rectification, Human Muscular Skeletal Systems. It is not contended that the trustees had such knowledge or gave such consent. p. 117D G, The relevant rule for the decision of this case is the fundamental rule of equity that a person in a fiduciary capacity must not make a profit out of his trust which is part of the wider rule that a trustee must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict.: p. 123C, Whether there is a possibility of conflict depends on whether 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: p. 124B, Note that in this case, not only did the principals, which are the trust beneficiaries, no lose anything, but they actually profited from the increase in value of shares held under the trust as a result of the actions of defendants thus it can be surmised that regardless of whether any wrongdoing or harm was caused to the principal, the fiduciary is liable for all profits acquired as a result of his position. The House of Lords maintained the strict rule that historically equity has imposed on a fiduciary. law since Boardman v Phipps. Land law - Introduction to land law with description of its history, Introduction to Sports Massage and Soft Tissue Practices, Legal and Professional Aspects of Optometry (BIOL30231), Access to Health Professionals (4000773X), Business Data Analysis (BSS002-6/Ltn/SEM1), Introductory Chemistry (0FHH0023-0901-2018), Introduction toLegal Theory andJurisprudence, Introduction to English Language (EN1023), Cell Membranes - Lecture notes, lectures 1 - 24. 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. *Lecturer in Law at University of East London, Email: Search for other works by this author on: The Author (2008). P0Y|',Em#tvx(7&B%@m*k Boardman was concerned about the accounts of the company, and thought that to protect the trust a majority shareholding is required. If you see Sign in through society site in the sign in pane within a journal: If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society. This species of action is an action for restitution such as Lord Wright described in the Fibrosa case. Don't already have a personal account? The trust benefited by this distribution 47,000, while Boardman and Phipps made 75,000. The case for tracing forward not backward through an overdraft. 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. John Phipps and another beneficiary, sued for their profits, alleging a conflict of interest by Boardman and Phipps. P0Y|',Em#tvx(7&B%@m*k % Boardman, the 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. It concludes that the conduct-based approach in Boardman v Phipps should be rejected, and that the unjust enrichment-based approach provided by Warman International Ltd v Dwyer should be In this Equity Short, John Picton analyses Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2. By using Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account. 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. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account. (eg- acting for multiple people) a. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46. His Lordship distinguished Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver by restricting Regal Hastings to circumstances concerned with property of which the principals were contemplating a purchase. 'Rules of equity have to be applied to such a great diversity of circumstances that they can be stated only in the most general terms and applied with particular attention to the exact circumstances of each case. The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. The problem was that the trust instrument itself did not allow the investment of, Boardman purporting to act on behalf of the trust (relationship of agenc, discovered the likely cost of the shares and purchased the shares in his own, At all points, Boardman had acted honestly, After Boardman had purchased the controlling interest in the company. 39^40. "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. If the defendant has done valuable work in making the profit, then the court in its discretion may allow him a recompense. WI[y*UBNJ5U,`5B1F :IK6dtdj::yj Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic. Ought Boardman and Tom Phipps to be allowed remuneration for their work and skill in these negotiations? Enter your library card number to sign in. Read more about this topic: Boardman V Phipps, Judgment, A severe though not unfriendly critic of our institutions said that the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at it.Walter Bagehot (18261877), The welcome house of him my dearest guest.Where ever, ever stay, and go not thence,Till natures sad decree shall call thee hence;Flesh of thy flesh, bone of thy bone,I here, thou there, yet both but one.Anne Bradstreet (c. 16121672), You see how this House of Commons has begun to verify all the ill prophecies that were made of itlow, vulgar, meddling with everything, assuming universal competency, and flattering every base passionand sneering at everything noble refined and truly national. Q6 - You now need to carry out research about the different universities/colleges you are interested in applying to by finding the answers to the areas you have outlined in your responses to questions 3 and 5 above. Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel-British Bank Ltd, Industrial Development Consultants v Cooley, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boardman_v_Phipps&oldid=1123060721, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0, [1965] Ch 992, [1965] 2 WLR 839 and [1964] 1 WLR 993, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Cohen, Lord Hodson, Lord Guest and Lord Upjohn, This page was last edited on 21 November 2022, at 15:30. He and a beneficiary, Tom Phipps, went to a shareholders' general meeting of the company. privacy policy. For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for Boardman v Phipps . 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. Coke v Fountaine (1676) Mike Macnair; 3. Tom Boardman was a solicitor for a family trust. 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. [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 and Tom Phipps, one of the beneficiaries under the trust, were unhappy with the state of the . The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal's range includes jurisprudence and legal history. If the agent has been guilty of any dishonesty or bad faith, or surreptitious dealing, he might not be allowed any remuneration or reward. A fiduciary agent has to account to for any profits acquired by reason of the his fiduciary position and the opportunity or knowledge resulting from it, even if the principals could not have made the . Tom Boardman was a solicitor for a family trust. This article explores . Boardman had concerns about the state of Lexter & Harris' accounts and thought that, in order to protect the trust, a majority shareholding was required. 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. The beneficiary principle in the 21st century, Subscription prices and ordering for this journal, Purchasing options for books and journals across Oxford Academic, Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic. You do not currently have access to this article. A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions. . Judgement for the case Boardman v Phipps The solicitor to a family trust (S) and one Beneficiary (B)-there were several-went to the board meeting of a company in which the trust owned shares. <> Lord Hodson and Lord Guest: Since S and B had used information made available to them by virtue of their relationship to the trust (as solicitor and beneficiary respectively), and since the information was trust property, they had made a profit out of trust property, rendering them liable. F5aE}*?fxl1oA+;{ S>"~qOf~AcW|g[ VFaxb'o Tns34}#rPDB However the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to make a monetary award to S for his services to improving the value of the trust. Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. It was irrelevant that S had acted in an open and honest (and profitable!) . If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian. Recent cases including Bhullar v Bhullar are discussed to illustrate the present approach of the courts to the recurring issues surrounding possible applications of the no-conflict rule. But they did not obtain the fully informed consent of all the beneficiaries. Boardman and Tom Phipps had breached their duties to avoid a conflict of interest. ", The phrase "possibly may conflict" requires consideration. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth (1965) Alison Dunn; 20. This meant he had to account for all profits arising out the CoI, no matter how remote the probability was that this CoI would actually arise. Part II describes the rationales for adopting each of the approaches to awarding allowances to dishonest fiduciaries. Click the account icon in the top right to: Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The full text is available here: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1966/2.html, -- Download Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 as PDF --, Transvaal Lands Co v New Belgium (Transvaal) Lands & Development CO [1914] 2 Ch 488, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1966/2.html, Download Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 as PDF. T he respondent, JP, was a son of the testator and a beneficiary under the . S;70[`J)LQ,ecX_LK,*q3>~ B=eA* His liability to account depends on the facts. The majority disagreed about the nature and relevance of information used by Boardman and Phipps. Register, Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. The Trustee (T) refused to let them invest on behalf of the trust. It concludes that the conduct-based approach in Boardman v Phipps should be rejected, and that the unjust enrichment-based approach provided by Warman International Ltd v Dwyer should be %PDF-1.5 in Aberdeen Railway v. Blaikie, 136 where he said: "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. View the institutional accounts that are providing access. Boardman v Phipps is a leading authority on the no-conflict rule. In April 1997, Mrs Newman and her husband granted a lease of 1 Vicarage . He also obtained detailed trading accounts of the English and Australian arms of the business. However, the circumstances were quite different to those in Boardman v Phipps. For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Therefore S and B invested themselves and the company did very well, improving the value of the shares held by themselves individually and by the trust. Administrative Law. 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. ), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms. Priority of trustees indemnity inter se: pari passu or first in time priority? Case summary last updated at 24/02/2020 14:46 by the For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions However, they were generously remunerated for their services to the trust. Issues Did Boardman and Tom Phipps breach their duty to avoid a conflict of interest, despite the fact that the company made a profit and . The trustees were prevented from purchasing any further shares as they were not authorised investments under the terms of . Unit 11. A testator le ft 8000 shares (a minority share holding) of a private company in . The trust property included a substantial shareholding in a private company. Is it a conflict? The trust assets include a 27% holding in a textile company called Lexter & Harris. Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co (a . They wanted to invest and improve the company. 399, 400 (PC). Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 437. principal shareholder group, Boardman obtained information about the factories of Lester & Harris in Coventry and Nuneaton and its property in Australia. Boardman v Phipps is a leading authority on the no-conflict rule. endobj Rix LJ in Foster v Bryant4 was similarly equivocal to Arden LJ about the inflexibility of the test in Boardman v Phipps. Show all summaries ( 46 ) Material Facts Boardman was the solicitor for a family trust. 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. Request Permissions, Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal. Boardman and Phipps did not obtain the fully informed consent of all the beneficiaries. 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. This decision was followed and applied in Boardman v Phipps. The claim for repayment cannot, however, be allowed to extend further than the justice of the case demands. Boardman v Phipps [1967] Where an individual is in the position of agent for trustees, any knowledge acquired in such a position is trust property. His daughter, Mrs Newman, was one of the trustees. 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. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. 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. WI[y*UBNJ5U,`5B1F :IK6dtdj::yj HL (majority 3-2) held that S and B would hold their acquired shares as constructive trustees for the beneficiaries. Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the worlds leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. BOARDMAN and Another v. PHIPPS Viscount Dilhorne Lord Cohen Lord Hodson Lord Guest Lord Upjohn. criticism, see L.S. Abstract. <>/ExtGState<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 17 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R 25 0 R 35 0 R 36 0 R 40 0 R 42 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 594.96 842.04] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> O(Grx+Q_[%Dm%|(Dy m%Cn(Dy(o%~(Jg(Q[tJD|(R(GIAK(xRph1%Z'-Y!bO-FDY b<9hHJO-F?!b<98HO-F!b-f b. The trustees were informed of these intentions. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org. A fiduciary shall not profit from his position, Appeal dismissed; the defendants were liable to account for the shares and profits to the trust beneficiaries, but the liberal allowance was maintained, A fiduciary agent has to account to for any profits acquired by reason of the his fiduciary position and the opportunity or knowledge resulting from it, even if the principals could not have made the profits themselves with such opportunity or knowledge, unless the principal has given his informed consent, The profits will be held on constructive trust for the principal by the fiduciary agent, but the board may make allowance to the fiduciary agent for expenditure and work expended to acquire the profit, The defendants, Boardman and another, were acting as solicitors to the trustees of a will trust, and therefore were fiduciaries but not trustees, The trustees were minority shareholders in a private company which was being inefficiently managed, Boardman and one of the beneficiaries under the trust, in good faith, personally financed the purchase of a controlling interest in the company, in order to reorganise it to the benefit of the trust holding, Both the personal and trust holdings increased in value as a result of the reorganisation; one of the other beneficiaries therefore sought an account of the personal profits made by the defendants, Wilberforce J, in the High Court, held that the defendants were liable to account for the profit less the money spent on realising that profit; but at the same time made a liberal allowance for the work put in to realise that profit, The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, who dismissed their appeal; they subsequently appealed to the House of Lords.
Butler University Acceptance Rate,
Which Software Was The First Available For Microcomputers Quizlet,
Tina Setkic Business School,
Nordica Enforcer 94 Sale,
Articles B