![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_OoFgZDOaX65rndoX4Rh4lexRDyBX722WpomKG4GRnli3pEEkZCbOjwdqS7oxaOEs1eqITokfLAgf_cZc2668VgsaAebSx5wEGqU5cUfv2YMa7CqqOIu3Dls54LSe7-fwtk3d3bf9EhxY/s610/uk-lgflag.gif)
The claimants' argument that fiduciary duties were owed, which relied heavily on the Australian decision Brunninghausen v Glavanics [1999] NSWCA 199, was rejected and, at the end of his analysis, the trial judge (Jacobs J) stated (at para. [746]):
Overall, it seems to me that the circumstances in which a fiduciary duty will usually be held to exist are well-summarised by Nugee J. at [13] of [Sharp v Blank [2015] EWHC 3220 (Ch)]: the cases where such duty has been held to exist mostly concern companies which are small and closely held, where there is often a family or other personal relationship between the parties, and where, in almost all cases, there is a particular transaction involved in which directors are dealing with the shareholders".
No comments:
Post a Comment