Mr Cooley was the managing director of the claimant. His duties included procuring business in the field of developing gas depots. The company had unsuccessful negotiations with the Eastern Gas Board for the development of four depots. However, the Gas Board were not prepared to let the contracts to the company. The Gas Board subsequently approached Mr Cooley in his private capacity; and indicated that they would be prepared to contract with him personally. In the course of the meeting, Mr Cooley acquired knowledge that the company did not have; and would have wanted to have. Mr Cooley therefore resigned his office (on the basis of a false excuse) and entered into the contracts with the Gas Board.
Held: He was accountable for the profit. Where a fiduciary obtains a benefit in breach of his fiduciary duty, he is liable to account even if the beneficiary could not itself have obtained that benefit or opportunity. A company director owes a fiduciary duty to report relevant information of concern to the company: ‘Information which came to [the director] while he was managing director and which was of concern to [the company] and was relevant for [the company] to know, was information which it was his duty to pass on to [the company] because between himself and [the company] a fiduciary relationship existed . . ‘ and ‘Therefore, I feel impelled to the conclusion that when the defendant embarked on this course of conduct of getting information . . using that information and preparing those documents . . and sending them off . . , he was guilty of putting himself into the position in which his duty to his employers, the plaintiffs, and his own private interests conflicted and conflicted grievously. There being the fiduciary relationship I have described, it seems to me plain that it was his duty once he got this information to pass it to his employers and not to guard it for his own personal purposes and profit. He put himself into the position when his duty and his interests conflicted.’
References: [1972] 1 WLR 443
Judges: Roskill J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited ChD 23-Jan-2004
There was a contract for the sale of Craven Cottage football stadium, conditional upon the grant of non-onerous planning permissions. It was claimed that the contract had been obtained by the defendant employee in breach of his fiduciary duties to . .
(Times 05-Feb-04, [2004] EWHC 52 (Ch), , [2004] 1 BCLC 468) - Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
Held: A company . .
([2004] EWCA Civ 1244, Times 21-Oct-04, , [2004] BCC 994, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 17, [2005] ICR 450, [2005] 2 BCLC 91, [2004] IRLR 928) - 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 . .
(, [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch)) - Cited – O’Donnell v Shanahan and Another CA 22-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her petition for an order for the defendants to purchase her shares at a fair value, saying that they had acted unfairly toward her. Her co-directors had acquired, for another company of which they were . .
(, [2009] EWCA Civ 751, Times 21-Aug-09) - Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
(, [2006] EWCA Civ 1735, [2007] FSR 16, [2007] IRLR 126) - Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
(, [2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm), [2011] ArbLR 55)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192208 br>