Trusts and Trustees—Constructive trust—Fiduciary duty—Breach—Officer of company—Manager of property development company informs another developer of availability of suitable properties for development—Agreement to share profits or bear losses—Whether properties acquired by second developer held on constructive trust for first—Knowledge—Whether constructive notice knowledge.
Decisions
1975, February 26. The following written judgments were delivered:- BARWICK C.J. In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Stephen. I agree with his conclusions, both as to the nature and validity of the trial judge's findings of fact and as to the applicable law. I also agree with my brother's analysis of the facts of the case and with the reasons he gives for the conclusions which he expresses. (at p377)
2. I agree that the appeal should be allowed. (at p377)
McTIERNAN J. These are appeals from two judgments of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales (Hardie and Hutley JJ.A., Jacobs P. dissenting) (1974) 1 NSWLR 443 reversing judgments of Hope J. dismissing actions by the present respondent - D.P.C. Estates - against the present appellant - Consul. One R.K. Grey was a defendant to the actions and a respondent to D.p.C. Estates' appeal to the Court of Appeal but he has not appealed to this Court from the orders made against him by the Court of Appeal. Those orders therefore stand. (at p377)
2. The hearing before Hope J. took eleven days; the appeal book runs into 638 pages, including judgments occupying nearly 150 pages, and the very bulk of the material presented to us invites an effort to reduce our consideration to critical issues. This can, I think, be most readily done by stating in the first place the law which I regard as applicable and then concentrating attention upon the facts to which that law must be applied without too much regard to matter which seems to me peripheral. (at p377)
3. There is a strict equitable principle that a person occupying a position of confidence in relation to another owes that other a duty not to put himself in a position where his interests and his duty conflict and requires that, if he abuses that confidence and in breach of his duty makes a profit for himself, he must account to that other for the profit so made. If after full and frank disclosure of all material facts to the person to whom such a duty as I have described is owed and permission has been given to make a profit for himself out of transactions which would otherwise be in breach of duty he is, of course, absolved from any obligation to account. For authority for this salutary principle I content myself with citing…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 8
Case
[1975] HCA 8
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Consul Development Pty Ltd (Consul) and DPC Estates Pty Ltd (DPC) were the parties involved in this appeal to the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the entitlement to profits arising from the sale of certain land. DPC alleged that Consul had breached fiduciary duties owed to it by acquiring and developing the land for its own benefit, thereby profiting from information and opportunities that rightfully belonged to DPC.
The High Court was required to determine whether Consul, through its director Mr. Olsson, had acted in breach of fiduciary duties owed to DPC. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Mr. Olsson, in his capacity as a director of both companies, had improperly used his position to gain a personal advantage at the expense of DPC, and whether Consul was therefore liable to account to DPC for the profits derived from the land transactions. The central question was whether the information and opportunity to acquire the land were acquired by Mr. Olsson in circumstances that gave rise to a fiduciary obligation to DPC.
The Court held that Mr. Olsson, by reason of his position as a director of DPC and his involvement in DPC's affairs, was in a fiduciary relationship with DPC. This fiduciary duty extended to information and opportunities that came to him in the course of his directorship and were relevant to DPC's business. The Court found that Mr. Olsson had acquired the information and opportunity to purchase the land in question in his capacity as a director of DPC, and that he had used this information and opportunity for the benefit of Consul, a competing entity, without the informed consent of DPC. Consequently, Consul was liable to account to DPC for the profits made from the development and sale of the land.
The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were affirmed.