Fiduciary Duty - Category Based Fid Relations

Question 1

Which case establishes trustee- beneficiary as a relationship?

Answer 1

Boardman v Phipps [1967]

Question 2

Which case establishes director- company relationship?

Answer 2

Guinness plc v Saunders [1990]

• Director is the decision maker, but they have no equitable ownership, assets vested in company
• But its still possible for these directors to make bit of money for themselves for their companies
• So it was ruled directors have fiduciary duty

Question 3

Which case establishes Executor - Legatee relationship?

Answer 3

Docker v Somes (1834)

• Executor responsible for assets in will - there’s no split in legal and equitable title but this person is managing the property
• There will be temptation to manage it for their own benefits
• So they owe fiduciary duty

Question 4

Which case establishes partner/ partnership as a relationship?

Answer 4

Featherstonhaugh v Fenwick (1810)

Question 5

Which case establishes solicitor - client relationships

Because they’re responsible for advising on large money decisions)

Answer 5

Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew

[1998]

Question 6

Which case establishes agent - principal relationships?

Why?

Answer 6

Kelly v Cooper [1993]

• Agency - take decisions and bind their principles to contracts - like purchasing agents who need to close sales for people - hi9gh level of control over assets
• Example remedies would be, rescind transaction, take profits, or sue the agent

Question 7

Recent non fiduciary agent case - Eze v Conway 2019?

Answer 7

• Expensive house in London he was dealing with, so how is he not fiduciary
• Facts - show how courts look into precise circumstances
  
  • Involve mr and mrs selling house
  • Potential buyer was prince, Nigerian oil baron
  • Price was 5 million
  • Agent took a secret commission, 75,000 pounds
  • Prince sought recission
  • This would’ve been a breach of fiduciary duty but there wasn’t a duty
  • His authority was limited to dealing with the exchange of contracts, it was the prince carrying out everything else
  • So said the agent didn’t have the discretion or power to make him a fiduciary - said the agent was just of facilitator or a gopher, only there to encourage parties to complete the sale
  • Not duty so taking secret commission wasn’t a breach of duty - meant prince didn’t have a claim
• Important because it shows categories are less important, and about what these people are obliged to do
• If the person isn’t in a position of control to cause these harm, there’s cant be a duty
• Raise question, what are the factors the courts are going to look for in establishing a duty from now then?