The past 12 months saw a flurry of important decisions from the UK Supreme Court on the subject of fiduciary duties, which English law imposes on parties who act on behalf of others in circumstances of trust and confidence. In this article, we consider three such cases, Hopcraft v Close Brothers, Rukhadze v Recovery Partners and Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd, as well as their impact on the law in this area. As will be seen, these decisions have clarified certain aspects of how fiduciary duties arise, what they require and what the consequences are when they are breached.
This is useful to be aware of for any client whose activities might involve acting or making decisions on behalf of someone else, whether in a business or personal context. Fiduciary obligations can often arise in these situations.
The harshness of these remedies exists to avoid fiduciaries being tempted (e.g. by the prospect of their own gain) from diverging from the single-minded loyalty they owe to their principal. As will be shown, this remains a key theme in how the law is upheld.
Read the full insight to learn more.
