BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just Β£5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Supreme Court |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Supreme Court >> FHR European Ventures LLP & Ors v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 (16 July 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/45.html Cite as: [2014] 2 BCLC 145, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 425, [2014] WLR(D) 317, [2014] 3 WLR 535, [2014] WTLR 1135, [2015] AC 250, [2014] UKSC 45, [2015] 1 AC 250, [2014] 4 All ER 79, [2014] Lloyd's Rep FC 617, [2015] 1 P &CR DG1, [2014] 2 Lloyd's Rep 471 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [View ICLR summary: [2014] WLR(D) 317] [Buy ICLR report: [2015] 1 AC 250] [Buy ICLR report: [2014] 3 WLR 535] [Help]
Trinity Term
[2014] UKSC 45
On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 17
FHR European Ventures LLP and others (Respondents) v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Appellant)
Appellant Matthew Collings QC Duncan McCombe (Instructed by Farrer and Co LLP) |
Respondent Christopher Pymont QC (Instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) |
LORD NEUBERGER, DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The facts
Prefatory comments
"The rule of equity which insists on those, who by use of a fiduciary position make a profit, being liable to account for that profit, in no way depends on fraud, or absence of bona fides; or upon such questions or considerations as whether the profit would or should otherwise have gone to the plaintiff, or whether the profiteer was under a duty to obtain the source of the profit for the plaintiff, or whether he took a risk or acted as he did for the benefit of the plaintiff, or whether the plaintiff has in fact been damaged or benefited by his action. The liability arises from the mere fact of a profit having, in the stated circumstances, been made."
The decided cases
"[W]here a fiduciary has exploited a commercial opportunity for his own benefit, the relevant question, in my judgment, is not whether the party to whom the duty is owed (the company, in the instant case) had some kind of beneficial interest in the opportunity: in my judgment that would be too formalistic and restrictive an approach. Rather, the question is simply whether the fiduciary's exploitation of the opportunity is such as to attract the application of the rule."
Legal principle and academic articles
Arguments based on principle and practicality
Conclusions