The defendants had taken a secret commission when acting for the claimant. They had succeeded in their action and had an order in their favour, but had been refused a proprietary remedy for the sum received.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and a declaration made that Cedar had received the 10m Euros fee on constructive trust for the claimants absolutely.
Pill LJ described described the debate on the availability of a proprietary remedy as revealing ‘passions of a force uncommon in the legal world’.
Judges:
Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Pill, Lewison LJJ
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Civ 17, [2013] 1 P andCR DG24, [2014] 1 CH 1, [2013] 2 BCLC 1, 15 ITELR 902, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 257, [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 416, [2013] WTLR 631, [2013] 3 WLR 466, [2013] WLR(D) 32, [2013] 2 EGLR 169, [2013] 3 All ER 29
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Mankarious and Others ChD 5-Sep-2011
The claimants sought return of what it said were secret commissions earned by the defendants when working as their agents, and the defendants counterclaimed saying that the commissions had been known to the claimants and that additional sums were . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts, Agency, Torts – Other, Equity
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470617