Agency - 1996

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 4 cases, and was prepared on 27 October 2012.

Mothew (T/a Stapley & Co) -v- Bristol and West Building Society [1996] EWCA Civ 533; [1998] Ch 1; [1997] 2 WLR 436; [1996] 4 All ER 698
24 Jul 1996 CA Millett LJ	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions, Equity, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse to further borrowing when he knew that they were using an overdraft to obtain further funding. The plaintiff claimed in breach of trust. Held: A claim for damages for a solicitor's failure to disclose the existence of a 2nd mortgage must show that damage flowed from the failure alleged. "A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations. They are the defining characteristics of the fiduciary." He is not subject to fiduciary obligations because he is a fiduciary; it is because he is subject to them that he is a fiduciary: "A fiduciary who acts for two principals with potentially conflicting interests without the informed consent of both is in breach of the obligation of undivided loyalty; he puts himself in a position where his duty to one principal may conflict with his duty to another . . This is sometimes described as 'the double employment rule.'" and "Finally, the fiduciary must take care not to find himself in a position where there is an actual conflict of duty so that he cannot fulfil his obligations to one principal without failing in his obligations to the other . . If he does, he may have no alternative but to cease to act for at least one and preferably both. The fact that he cannot fulfil his obligations to one principal without being in breach of his obligations to the other will not absolve him from liability." As to breach of the duty: "Breach of fiduciary obligation, therefore, connotes disloyalty or infidelity. Mere incompetence is not enough. A servant who loyally does his incompetent best for his master is not unfaithful and is not guilty of a breach of fiduciary duty."
	Link[s] omitted

Mohammed -v- G H Cook Grosvenor Byde Limited [1996] EWCA Civ 810
25 Oct 1996 CA	Insurance, Agency
	Link[s] omitted

Dowling Kerr Limited -v- Thomas Scott [1996] EWCA Civ 898
7 Nov 1996 CA	Agency
	Estate agents commission on sale.
	Link[s] omitted

Mak -v- Wocom Commodities Limited [1996] UKPC 40
11 Nov 1996 PC Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Sir John May	Financial Services, Agency, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Cites
	(Hong Kong) The appellant had placed foreign exchange transactions with the respondents. He claimed that they were acting as his agents, and claimed that they had made undisclosed profits. They claimed to have been acting as principals. He now appealed a finding that he knew that they were so acting. Held: The issue turned on the credibility of witnesses. Where there had been to consistent findings of fact in the lower courts, the settled procedure of the Board was not itself to make such an assessment. Matters such as the weight to be attached to particular evidence did not come within any exception to that rule.
	Link[s] omitted