References: [2014] WASC 102
Links: Austlii
Coram: Edelman J
(Supreme Court of Western Australia) Equity – Fiduciary duties – Whether mere existence of conflict is actionable – Whether a breach of conflict rule requires a fiduciary actually to act in a position of conflict and pursue or prefer a personal interest – Judgment pars [263] – [275]
Equity – Fiduciary duties – Whether a clause of a constitution of a trustee company can exclude all fiduciary duties – Consistency with s 601FC Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Effect on fiduciary duties owed by directors to the company
Equity – Equitable compensation – Where fiduciary duties owed by directors to a company – Whether the company can sue its directors for loss if contract entered into at an undervalue by trustee company on behalf of beneficiaries – Misleading to ask whether fiduciary duties are owed to the company ‘in its own right’ or ‘as trustee’ – Irrelevance to the award of compensation of whether the trustee will hold any recovery on trust for beneficiaries – Judgment pars
Equity – Equitable compensation – Difference between substitutive compensation and reparative compensation – When substitutive compensation is available – Judgment pars
Equity – Equitable compensation – Causation – ‘Common sense’ test of causation – Scope of liability for consequences – Need to identify precisely the scope of duty owed – Judgment pars
Corporations – Meaning of ‘compensation’ and causation requirements in s 1317H of the Corporations Act – Judgment pars
Corporations – Effect of deregistration of a registered scheme on ‘compensation’ in s 1317H of the Corporations Act – Judgment pars
Corporations – Meaning of ‘knowingly concerned in’ in s 79(c) of the Corporations Act – Requirement of ‘practical connection’ with at least one element of the contravention – Judgment pars
Limitation of actions – Application of limitation period by analogy – Limitation period for breach of equitable duty of care and skill by analogy with breach of common law duty of care and skill and by analogy with s 180 of Corporations Act – Judgment pars
This case is cited by:
- Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc -v- Mark Redler & Co Solicitors SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 58, [2014] 3 WLR 1367, [2014] WLR(D) 466, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0052, SC, SC Summary)
The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Nov-15 Ref: 553780