The residuary estate included 8000 shares in J.ester & Harris Ltd., an underperforming private company with issued share capital of 3l),000 1 ordinary shares. But then John Phipps, another beneficiary, sued for their profits, alleging a conflict of interest. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account. But when, as in this case, the agents acted openly and above board, but mistakenly, then it would be only just that they should be allowed remuneration. Boardman was speculating with trust property and should be liable. The only defence available to a person in such a fiduciary position is that he made the profits with the knowledge and assent of the trustees. His Lordship regarded Boardman to be liable because he acquired the information in the course of the fiduciary relationship and because of the fiduciary relationship. Landmark cases in equity in SearchWorks catalog - Stanford University This article explores . You do not currently have access to this article. PDF Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 - 02-17-2019 For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for Boardman v Phipps . Boardman v Phipps is a leading authority on the no-conflict rule. Boardman was a solicitor to trustees of a will trust. "It is perhaps stated most highly against trustees or directors in the celebrated speech of Lord Cranworth L.C. trust. Register, Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. endobj This is because there is no possibility the trustee would seek Boardman's advice to purchase the shares and at any rate Boardman could have declined to act if given such request. 3 0 obj Is it a conflict? If the agent has been guilty of any dishonesty or bad faith, or surreptitious dealing, he might not be allowed any remuneration or reward. Did Boardman and Tom Phipps breach their duty to avoid a conflict of interest, despite the fact that the company made a profit and they had obtained (some) consent from the beneficiaries?
boardman v phipps criticism