This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 19:48

Judgement for the case Boardman v Phipps

KEY POINTS

  • Since the solicitor and beneficiary utilized information accessible to them due to their roles within the trust, and since this information constituted trust assets, they derived financial gain from trust assets.

  • As a result, they incurred responsibility for profiting from trust assets.

FACTS

  • Mr. Tom Boardman, the solicitor of a family trust, became concerned about the financial state of a textile company in which the trust held a substantial stake. He believed that a majority shareholding was necessary to protect the trust's interests.

  • Together with a beneficiary named Tom Phipps, Boardman attended a shareholders' general meeting of the company and saw an opportunity to turn the company around. They proposed to another trustee, Mr. Fox, that acquiring a majority shareholding would be beneficial. However, Fox dismissed the idea of the trustees being involved in such a purchase.

  • Despite lacking the consent of all beneficiaries, Boardman and Phipps decided to purchase the shares themselves, subsequently acquiring a majority stake. Through capitalizing some company assets, the company made a distribution of capital without reducing share values.

  • The trust gained £47,000 from this distribution, while Boardman and Phipps made £75,000 in profits. Another beneficiary named John Phipps then sued Boardman and Phipps, alleging a conflict of interest and seeking recovery of their profits.

  • The case raises questions about conflicts of interest, trustee duties, and beneficiary consent.

COMMENTARY

  • The case highlights the strictness of fiduciary duties and the courts' commitment to upholding the integrity of fiduciary relationships.

  • Even though Boardman and Phipps believed their actions were in the best interest of the trust, the court emphasized the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and obtaining proper consent from all beneficiaries.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • The solicitor to a family trust (S) and one Beneficiary (B) - there were several - went to the board meeting of a company in which the trust owned shares. They wanted to invest and improve the company.

  • The Trustee (T) refused to let them invest on behalf of the trust. Therefore S and B invested themselves and the company did very well, improving the value of the shares held by themselves individually and by the trust.

  • Another beneficiary (P) claimed conflict of interest and demanded her share of the profit, because of S’ fiduciary role.

  • HL (majority 3-2) held that S and B would hold their acquired shares as constructive trustees for the beneficiaries.

    • However the court exercised its “inherent jurisdiction” to make a monetary award to S for his services to improving the value of the trust. 

Lord Hodson and Lord Guest 

  • Since S and B had used information made available to them by virtue of their relationship to the trust (as solicitor and beneficiary respectively), and since the information was trust property, they had made a profit out of trust property, rendering them liable. 

Lord Cohen (on a point with which Hodson and Cohen agreed)

  • S had placed himself in a position of potential COI, for example if the trustees asked his advice on the merits of buying more shares in the company.

  • This meant he had to account for all profits arising out the CoI, no matter how remote the probability was that this CoI would actually arise.

  • It was irrelevant that S had acted in an open and honest (and profitable!) way. 

Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Upjohn (DISSENTING)

  • A COI only arises and renders a fiduciary liable to account for profits made where a reasonable man, looking at all the relevant circumstances, would conclude that there was a real, sensible possibility of conflict of interest, which was not the case here. 

 ----

The minority are right - it is unfair that where no CoI actually caused harm (or even potential harm) to the trust S should have to account for his profits.

This ruling would deter people in S’ position from actions which could only improve the value of the trust. If S had been asked advice in the future he could simply have declined to give it, while other jurisdictions (e.g. US) have been able to adopt a more flexible approach - Oakley (ed) Parker and Mellows; The Modern Law of Trusts

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Boardman v Phipps

Trusts and Equity Notes
1,016 total pages
1807 purchased

Equity notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. Th...

Commercial Remedies BCL Notes
497 total pages
27 purchased

These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrase...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Trusts and Equity Notes
1,016 total pages
1807 purchased

Equity notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. Th...