Boardman v. Phipps

Boardman v. Phipps

"Boardman v. Phipps" [1967] 2 AC 46 is an English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

Facts

Mr Boardman was the solicitor of a family trust. He and a beneficiary, Tom Phipps, went to a shareholders general meeting of company (a textile company with factories in Coventry and an Australian subsidiary) where the trust held shares. They realised together that they could turn the company around. They asked a trustee (Mr Fox) and he seemed to say it would be okay for them to invest. They bought a majority stake. But they did not obtain the fully informed consent of all the beneficiaries. The company did very well, making them a lot of money, and also money for the trust. But then John Phipps, another beneficiary, sued for their profits, because they had put themselves in a conflict of interest position.

Judgment

The majority of the House of Lords (Lords Cohen, Guest and Hodson) held that there was a possibility of a conflict of interest, and so Tom and Mr Boardman would have to account for their profits. However they could be generously remunerated for their services to the trust.

Dissent

Lord Upjohn held that there should Tom and Mr Boardman should not be liable because a reasonable man would not have thought there was any possibility of a conflict of interest.

cquote|"It is perhaps stated most highly against trustees or directors in the celebrated speech of Lord Cranworth L.C. in "Aberdeen Railway v. Blaikie", 136 where he said:

"And it is a rule of universal application, that no one, having such duties to discharge, shall be allowed to enter into engagements in which he has, or can have, a personal interest conflicting, or which possibly may conflict, with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect."

The phrase "possibly may conflict" requires consideration. In my view it means that the reasonable man looking at the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case would think that there was a real sensible possibility of conflict; not that you could imagine some situation arising which might, in some conceivable possibility in events not contemplated as real sensible possibilities by any reasonable person, result in a conflict."

ee also

*Corporate law
*Business judgment rule

*"Keech v. Sandford" (1724) 2 Sel Cas Ch 16
*"Whelpdale v. Cookson" (1747) 1 Ves Sen 9
*"Regal (Hastings) Ltd v. Gulliver" [1967] 2 AC 134n
*"Industrial Development Consultants v. Cooley" [1972] 1 WLR 443
*"Bhullar v. Bhullar" [2003] 2 BCLC 241

Notes


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Tom Boardman, Baron Boardman — Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Gray Boardman, Baron Boardman MC, TD DL (12 January 1919 ndash; 10 March 2003) was an English Conservative politician and businessman.Boardman was born into a Northamptonshire farming family,cite… …   Wikipedia

  • Constructive trusts in English law — are a form of trust created by the courts primarily where the defendant has dealt with property in an unconscionable manner , but also in other circumstances; the property will be held in constructive trust for the harmed party, obliging the… …   Wikipedia

  • Board of directors — For other uses of trustee , trusty , and related terms, see Trustee (disambiguation). Board Room redirects here. For the Board Room member lounge, see Alaska Airlines. trustee in trust redirects here. A board of directors is a body of elected or… …   Wikipedia

  • List of cases involving Lord Denning — A list of cases involving Lord Denning is bound to be incomplete, since he delivered around 2000 reported judgments. Lord Denning served as a judge for nearly 40 years, from 1944 to 1982. He often played a decisive role in developing the law and… …   Wikipedia

  • Keech v. Sandford — (1726) Sel Cas. Ch.61; [1558 1774] All ER Rep 230 is a foundational case on the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It concerns the law of trusts and has affected much of the thinking on directors duties in company law.FactsA child had inherited the lease …   Wikipedia

  • United Kingdom company law — Beside the River Thames, the City of London is a global financial centre. Within the Square Mile, the London Stock Exchange lies at the heart of the United Kingdom s corporations. United Kingdom company law is the body of rules that concern… …   Wikipedia

  • Guth v. Loft Inc. — Guth v. Loft, Inc. , 5 A. 2d 503 (Del. Ch. 1939) is a Delaware corporation law case on corporate opportunities and the duty of loyalty. It deviated from the 200 year old rule laid down in Keech v. Sandford [ Keech v. Sandford (1726) Sel Cas.… …   Wikipedia

  • Industrial Development Consultants v. Cooley — [1972] 1 WLR 443 is a UK company law case on the corporate opportunities doctrine, and the duty of loyalty from the law of trusts.FactsMr. Cooley was an architect and the managing director of IDC. The Eastern Gas Board has a lucrative contract… …   Wikipedia

  • In Plus Group Ltd v. Pyke — [2002] EWCA Civ 370 is a UK company law case concerning the fiduciary duties of directors, and in particular the doctrine concerning corporate opportunities. In the course of his judgment, Sedley LJ cast serious doubt on the correctness of the… …   Wikipedia

  • ASIC v. Rich — Australian Securities Investments Commission v. Rich [2003] [http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/judgments/states/nsw/2003/february/2003nswsc85.htm NSWSC 85] is an Australian corporate law case concerning the fiduciary duties of directors around… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”