LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Nolan, Richard (2009)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 101 P. Finn, “The Fiduciary Principle”, in D. Waters (ed.), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Toronto 1989); P. Finn, “Fiduciary Law and the Modern Commercial World”, chapter 1 in E. McKendrick (ed.), Commercial Aspects of Trusts and Fiduciary Relationships (Oxford 1992); M. Conaglen, “The Nature and Function of Fiduciary Loyalty” (2005) 121 L.Q.R. 452 at pp. 454-460 and Fiduciary Loyalty (above note 71).
    • 102 Ibid.
    • 103 Aleyn v. Belchier (1758) 1 Eden 132 at p. 138, 28 E.R. 634 at p. 637, per Lord Northington. A few examples of powers that must be exercised in good faith suffice to make the point: Allen v. Gold Reefs of West Africa [1900] 1 Ch. 656 (shareholders' power to alter a company's articles of association); Yorkshire Bank v. Hall [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1713 (mortgagee's power of sale); Paragon Finance v. Nash [2001] EWCA Civ 1466, [2002] 1 W.L.R. 685 (mortgagee's power to set interest rates under the mortgage); Redwood Master Fund Ltd. v. TD Bank Europe Ltd. [2002] EWHC 2703
    • 104 (ACrhm)i,ta[2g0e0v6.] N1uBrCseL[C1919489]C(lhen.2d4e1rs;'Bproiswtoelr &toWaletsetrBthSevt.eMrmosthoefwa[l1o9a9n8]syCnhd.ic1a;tIitoenm).Software (UK) Ltd. v. Fassihi [2004] EWCA Civ 1244, [2005] 2 BCLC 91.
    • 105 See (again) Aleyn v. Belchier (1758) 1 Eden 132 at p. 138, 28 E.R. 634 at p. 637, per Lord Northington; Price v. Bouch (1986) 53 P. & C.R. 257 (power to administer a scheme of development); National Grid Co. plc v. Laws [1997] OPLR 207 (powers of an employer company under a pension trust); Yorkshire Bank plc v. Hall [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1713; (mortgagee's power of sale); Paragon Finance v. Nash [2001] EWCA Civ 1466, [2002] 1 W.L.R. 685 (mortgagee's power to
    • 106 sCeotninsitdereersHtruantteesruvn.dSeernathteeSmuoprptogratgSee)r.vSiceees, gLetnde.r[a2l0l0y4,]UEnWdeHrhCil1l0&85H(aCyhto),n[2(0a0b5o]v1eBn.oCte.L5.)C, .·117.756a.t [165]-[173], per John Randall Q.C., addressing the similarity of the principle to the Wednesbury
    • 107 pSreienPciaprltesDo(fii)puabbolivcel.aw.
    • 108 Smithson v. Hamilton [2007] EWHC 2900 (Ch), [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1453 at [97], per Sir Andrew Park.
    • 109 J.S. Getzler, “Equitable Compensation and the Regulation of Fiduciary Relationships”, in P. Birks and F. Rose (eds.), Restitution and Equity (London 2000), 235, “Duty of Care” in P. Birks and A. Pretto (eds.), Breach of Trust (Oxford 2002), 41, “Am I My Beneficiary's Keeper? Fusion and Loss-Based Fiduciary Remedies” in S. Degeling and J. Edelman (eds.), Equity in Commercial Law: Volume 1 (Sydney 2005), 239; J.D. Heydon, “Are the Duties of Company Directors to Exercise Care and Skill Fiduciary?”, ibid., 185. Note also Youyang v. Minter Ellison Morris
    • 110 FPleertmchaenre[n2t0B03u]ildHinCgAS1o5ci,e(t2y0(0i3n)li2q1u2idCat.Lio.nR).v4.8W4 haete[l3e9r](,1p9e9r4c)u1r4iaAm..C.S.R. 109 at p. 157, per Ipp J. The leading statement in English law to this effect was made by Millett L.J. in Bristol & West BS v. Mothew [1998] Ch. 1 at p. 18: see Johnson v. EBS Pensioner Trustees Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 164,
    • 111 [W20.0H2]eaLtlho,y“dT'shReeDpirPeNcto3r0's9 'aFtid[3u7c]i,apreyr' DMuutmymofeCryaLre.Ja.nd Skill: A Misnomer” (2007) 25 Company and Securities Law Journal 370.
    • 117 See, e.g., Hosegood v. Pedler (1896) 66 L.J. Q.B. 18 at pp. 20-21; Vacuum Oil Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Wiltshire (1945) 72 C.L.R. 319 at pp. 324-325 and 335. See also Donaldson v. Smith [2006] EWHC 1290 (Ch) at [54].
    • 118 See, e.g., Turner v. Harvey (1821) Jac. 169 at p. 178, 37 E.R. 814 at pp. 817-818 per Lord Eldon C.,
    • 119 aSneed, Dgeunnenravl.lyF,lRoo.Cd.(1N8o8l5a)n2,8“UChn.dDer.s5ta8n6daitngppth.e59L4i-m5i9ts5opferEFquryitaLb.Jle. Property” (2006) 1 Journal of Equity 18, drawing on C. Harpum, “Overreaching, Trustees' Powers and the Reform of the 1925 Legislation” [1990] C.L.J. 277.
    • 120 [1911] 1 Ch. 18. See in particular the judgment of Farwell L.J. at pp. 30-31.
    • 121 See, e.g., Hely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd. [1968] 1 Q.B. 549 at p. 583, per Lord Denning M.R.
    • 122 See, e.g., Re Lands Allotment Co. [1894] 1 Ch. 616 at p. 631 and p. 638, per Lindley and Kay L.J.J.
    • 123 Freeman & Lockyer v. Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd. [1964] 2 Q.B. 480; HelyHutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd. [1968] 1 Q.B. 549.
    • 124 See, generally, P. Watts, “Deeds and the Principles of Authority in Agency Law” (2002) 2 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 93 at pp. 96-98.
    • 125 Bryant, Powis & Bryant, Ltd. v. Quebec Bank [1893] A.C. 170 at p. 180, per Lord Macnaghten; Hambro v. Burnand [1904] 2 K.B. 10 at p. 25, per Romer L.J.; Reckitt v. Barnett, Pembroke & Slater Ltd. [1928] 2 K.B. 244 at pp. 257-260, per Scrutton L.J. (who refers to “clear notice of fraud” at p. 260), and at p. 262-265, per Sankey L.J. (reversed by the House of Lords, [1929] A.C. 176, holding that the scope of the agent's authority did not include the actions in question).
    • 126 Heinl v. Jyske Bank [1999] Lloyd's Rep. Bank. 511 (C.A.). In Australia, note The Bell Group Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Westpac Banking Corporation [2008] WASC 239 at [4462], per Owen J., who does not make the necessary distinction between cases involving contracts and cases involving allotments (as to which, see the text to note 134 below), citing authority concerning allotments (Whitehouse v. Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd. [1987] HCA 11, (1987) 162 C.L.R. 285 at [10], per Mason, Dean and Dawson J.J.) for a general proposition it does not support.
    • 127 Bryant, Powis & Bryant, Ltd. v. Quebec Bank [1893] A.C. 170 at p. 180, per Lord Macnaghten; Hambro v. Burnand [1904] 2 K.B. 10 at pp. 19-22, per Collins M.R., and at pp. 23-25, per Romer L.J.; Reckitt v. Barnett, Pembroke & Slater Ltd. [1928] 2 K.B. 244 at pp. 257-260, per Scrutton L.J.
    • 128 Hely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd. [1968] 1 Q.B. 549 at p. 583, per Lord Denning M.R. See also Hopkins v. TL Dallas Group Ltd. [2004] EWHC 1379 (Ch), [2005] 1 BCLC 543 at [88]-[89], per Lightman J.
    • 129 See above note 127.
    • 130 Hopkins v. TL Dallas Group Ltd. [2004] EWHC 1379 (Ch), [2005] 1 BCLC 543; Criterion Properties plc v. Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] UKHL 28, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1846. Indeed, the current edition of Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency (London 2006) seeks to use the doctrine of offensible authority to explain all these cases where the company (principal) is bound notwithstanding the director's (agent's) breach of fiduciary duty: ·3-009.
    • 131 See, e.g., Russell v. Wakefield Waterworks Co. (1875) L.R. 20 Eq. 474; Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd. v. Cradock (No. 3) [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1555; Belmont Finance Corporation v. Williams Furniture [1979] Ch. 250, (No. 2) [1980] 1 All E.R. 393; Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd. v. British Steel Corporation [1986] Ch. 246; Clark v. Cutland [2003] EWCA Civ 810, [2003] 2 BCLC 393.
    • 132 See, e.g., J.J. Harrison (Properties) Ltd. v. Harrison [2001] EWCA Civ 1467, [2002] 1 BCLC 162.
    • 133 See, e.g., Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd. v. British Steel Corporation [1986] Ch. 246; Eagle Trust plc v. SBC Securities Ltd. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 484, Eagle Trust plc v. SBC Securities Ltd. (No. 2)
    • 134 [H19o9g6g] v1.BC.Cra.Lm.pCh.o1r2n1.Ltd. [1967] Ch. 254; Bamford v. Bamford [1970] Ch. 212. The voidable allotment may be ratified by ordinary resolution of the company in English law (ibid.), though semble not under Australian law according to Residues Treatment & Trading Co Ltd v. Southern Resources Ltd (No. 4) (1988) 51 S.A.S.R. 196.
    • 135 As regards the power itself, see Companies Act 2006, s. 617(2)(a), re-enacting earlier legislation, given effect through a company's constitution (see, e.g., the model articles of association in the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/3229), Schedule 1, Art. 22 (private company articles) and Schedule 3, Art. 43 (public company articles)). As regards vesting the power in the company's directors, see its constitution (e.g., model articles, Art. 2 (private company
    • 136 aCrotimclpesanaineds Apuctbl2ic00c6o,ms.p5a4n1y, arret-iecnleasc)t)i.ng earlier legislation.
    • 143 See, e.g., Dover v. Buck (1865) 5 Giff. 57 at p. 63, 66 E.R. 921 at p. 924, per Stuart V.-C. and Guinness plc v. Saunders [1990] 2 A.C. 663 at pp. 697-698, per Lord Goff. Suggestions to the contrary in D. O'Sullivan et al, The Law of Rescission (Oxford 2008), at [1.65]-[1.69] are wrong. For a fuller refutation, see M. Conaglen, Fiduciary Loyalty (above note 71), Chapter 4, Part III.A.
    • 144 See, e.g., Campbell v. Walker (1800) 5 Ves. 678 at p. 682, 31 E.R. 801 at p. 803, per Arden M.R.; Dover v. Buck (1865) 5 Giff. 57 at p. 63, 66 E.R. 921 at p. 924, per Stuart V.-C. Occasionally, no transaction ever occurs at law, because there was only one party involved, and he cannot transact with himself. However, this situation is rare, given the effect of Law of Property Act 1925, s. 72. Also, a power of sale cannot be exercised by a sole trustee in favour of himself because there is no genuine arm's length sale, within the terms of the power. In either such a case, the self-dealing rule cannot apply: there is no transaction to which it can respond. See the dissenting judgment of Millett L.J. in Ingram v. IRC, [1997] 4 All E.R. 395 at pp. 424-425, subsequently vindicated by the House of Lords, [2000] 1 A.C. 293.
    • 145 Guinness plc v. Saunders [1990] 2 A.C. 663 at pp. 697-698, per Lord Goff.
    • 146 See Part D(ii) above.
    • 147 [2003] EWHC 114 (Ch), [2003] Ch. 409. This decision was followed in Gallaher Ltd. v. Gallaher Pensions Ltd. [2005] EWHC 42 (Ch).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article