Salmon v Albarran

The appeal concerned a claim brought by the appellants, Mr Salmon and others, against the respondent, Mr Albarran, who had acted as solicitor for the appellants in previous litigation. The appellants alleged that Mr Albarran had breached his fiduciary duties to them, both by continuing to act for them without informed consent and by subsequently putting forward a settlement deed in which he received a personal benefit. The appellants also brought claims against receivers appointed under an instrument, alleging they breached their fiduciary duties or were knowingly involved in Mr Albarran's breach.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Mr Albarran breached his fiduciary duties to the appellants, whether any such breach was dishonest, and whether the claims against him and the receivers were statute-barred. Relatedly, the court considered whether the instrument appointing the receivers was a deed, which would have engaged a longer limitation period, and whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the breach was not dishonest and in accepting a concession that equitable liability depended on dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in concluding that Mr Albarran's conduct in presenting the settlement deed, which included a benefit to himself, constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty. However, the court agreed with the primary judge that the breach was not dishonest, and that the appellants had provided informed consent for Mr Albarran to continue acting for them, thereby negating the claim based on that ground. The court also upheld the primary judge's finding that the instrument appointing the receivers was not a deed, meaning the six-year limitation period applied and the claims against the receivers were statute-barred. The court noted that the appellants' notice of appeal failed to comply with court rules regarding the identification of grounds and challenges to findings of fact.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the notice of motion dated 14 August 2024 was also dismissed. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs in the Court of Appeal.