The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the first defendant had been found dishonest through non-disclosure, and that section 21 of the 1980 Act applied to leave the claim not out of time.
Held: The authorities suggested that when looking at fiduciaries, a six year period would apply unless excluded under 21(1)(a) or (b). A claim for an account from someone acting as a trustee was such, since it was a claim against his personal liability for his own acts as director, and if fraud was established his case would fall within 21(1)(a), but not (b).
Mummery LJ said that: ‘For limitation purposes the two classes of trust and/or fiduciary duty are treated differently. The first class of case arising from the breach of a pre-existing duty is, or is treated by analogy, as an action by the beneficiary for breach of trust falling within section 21(1) of the 1980 Act. This means that there is no limitation period for the cases falling within section 21(1)(a) or (b); but that there is a six-year limitation period for cases falling with s21(3).’
Mummery, Hale, Carnwath LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 1048, Times 09-Sep-2003, [2004] 1 BCLC 131
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 21(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Deg-Deutsch Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy (No 3) Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd v Same (No 3) ChD 26-Oct-2001
A claim against a company director which alleged a misapplication of company assets involving a fraudulent, or dishonest breach of trust, was not subject to a limitation period. A company was alleged to have fraudulently hidden certain profits. The . .
Cited – Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (REBX) Ltd and Others CA 20-Jul-2000
Although a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, as a claim in equity, was not subject to the same limitation periods imposed by the Act as claims in tort or contract, a court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should apply similar periods under the . .
Cited – Furs Ltd v Tomkies 1936
(High Court of Australia) ‘the inflexible rule that, except under the authority of a provision in the articles of association, no director shall obtain for himself a profit by means of a transaction in which he is concerned on behalf of the company . .
Cited – Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver HL 20-Feb-1942
Directors Liability for Actions Ouside the Company
Regal negotiated for the purchase of two cinemas in Hastings. There were five directors on the board, including Mr Gulliver, the chairman. Regal incorporated a subsidiary, Hastings Amalgamated Cinemas Ltd, with a share capital of 5,000 pounds. There . .
Cited – Tito v Wadell (No 2) ChD 1977
The liability to account for profits on breach of the self-dealing rule and the fair-dealing rule does not arise from a breach of duty at all. In his judgment such liability is the consequence of an equitable disability rather than of a breach of . .
Cited – Movitex v Bulfield ChD 1988
The court considered a company’s articles of association which excused a director taking an interest in a contract with the company. The court treated the general exclusion of the self-dealing rule in the Articles as subject to the duty of the . .
Cited – Guinness plc v Saunders CA 1988
. .
Cited – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
Cited – In Re Neptune (Vehicle Washing Equipment) Ltd: Neptune (Vehicle Washing Equipment) Ltd v Fitzgerald ChD 2-Mar-1995
A sole company director must still have company meetings before entering into a contract even if only he will be present. When a director’s claim to the validity of a contract or arrangement depends upon his disclosure of it at a meeting, he must . .
Cited – Knox v Gye HL 1872
A court will, by analogy, apply a statutory limitation period if the remedy in equity, specific performance, is ‘correspondent to the remedy at law’ and where ‘the suit in equity corresponds with an action at law’. Lord Westbury said: ‘For where the . .
Cited – In Re Sharpe 1892
The misapplication of company money in the form of ultra vires payments of interest to shareholders was treated as a breach of trust by the directors. . .
Cited – Re Lands Allotment Company CA 1894
A limited company is not a trustee of its funds, but their beneficial owner. However, the fiduciary character of the duties of its directors mean that they are treated as if they were trustees of those funds of the company which are in their hands . .
Cited – Taylor v Davies PC 19-Dec-1919
(Ontario) An assignee for the benefit of creditors conveyed mortgaged property to the mortgagee in satisfaction of part of the debt due to him. The mortgagee was also one of the inspectors required by the Canadian legislation to supervise the . .
Cited – Clarkson v Davies PC 1923
In a case involving fraud, referring to Taylor v Davies, Lord Justice Clerk said that: ‘it was there laid down that there is a distinction between a trust which arises before the occurrence of the transaction impeached and cases which arises only by . .
Cited – Mothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society CA 24-Jul-1996
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse . .
Cited – Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited CA 21-Jul-1998
Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. . .
Cited – Bairstow and Others v Queens Moat Houses plc CA 17-May-2001
The court considered the liability of directors for an unlawfully paid dividend.
Held: Robert Walker LJ: ‘The prospect of the former directors being able to obtain contribution from innocent recipients of unlawful dividends was debated . .
Cited – J J Harrison v Harrison 2002
A company director, having concealed relevant information from the board, obtained company property at a substantial undervalue. . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Armitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .
Cited – Brickenden v London Loan and Savings Co PC 10-May-1934
In order to establish breach of the fiduciary dealing rules, the company does not have to prove that it would not have entered into the transaction if there had been compliance by the director with the fiduciary-dealing rules and he had made . .
Cited – Gross v Lewis Hillman Ltd CA 1970
Where there has been no misdirection on an issue of fact by the trial judge the presumption is that his conclusion on issues of fact is correct. The Court of Appeal will only reverse the trial judge on an issue of fact when it is convinced that his . .
Cited – Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’) CA 1985
Proof of corruption not needed for bribe
In establishing that money was paid as an improper inducement or bribe, proof of corruptness or a corrupt motive was unnecessary.
When a court looks at a decision of a judge at first instance, the court stressed the need to look at the . .
See Also – Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd v Koshy and others CA 3-Dec-2002
Second application further to amend court order . .
Cited by:
Cited – Newgate Stud Company, Newgate Stud Farm Llc v Penfold, Penfold Bloodstock Limited ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimants sought damages from the defendant. He had been employed to manage their horse-racing activities, and it was alleged that he had made secret profits. The defendant denied any dishonesty, saying all matters were known to the deceased . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Berezovsky v Abramovich ComC 22-May-2008
Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
Held: The proposed . .
Cited – Green and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased ChD 18-Mar-2005
The claimants began an action in January 2003 to seek to set aside the appointment of an administrator from December 1991, and to have set aside transfers of property made within the estate.
Held: The limitation period against a personal . .
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria SC 19-Feb-2014
Bank not liable for fraud of customer
The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a . .
Cited – Halton International Inc Another v Guernroy Ltd CA 27-Jun-2006
The parties had been involved in investing in an airline to secure its future, but it was now said that one party had broken the shareholders’ or voting agreement in not allowing further investments on a pari passu basis. The defendants argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Trusts, Limitation, Equity
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.186028