Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Breach of confidence is in danger of being enveloped by fiduciary doctrine. Law's ability to discipline confidence-breaking by computer hackers and persons unknown to their victims may be lost if this wrong's separateness is not maintained. Distinct moral imperatives and policies arise when confidentiality is protected. However, A-G v Blake casts doubt on the independence of breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty. Conflation of the wrongs may have occurred at Britain's highest appellate level. Similar developments can seen in Australia, Canada, Malaysia and New Zealand.
1. In the United Kingdom, defined in Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr (1991) 1 All ER 418 at 425 per Staughton LJ as a class of confidential information used in trade or business; see also at 434435 per Butler-Schloss LJ; in Australia, ‘a technical legal expression’: see Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 108 CLR 163 at 172, curiam and Corrs Pavey Whiting and Byrne v Collector of Customs (1987) 14 FCR 434 at 449 per Gummow J (Fed Ct of Aust); Canadian ‘trade secrets’ have been said to pertain more to technical production information than ‘business privacy’: see Merck Frost Canada Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health & Welfare) (1989) 30 CPR (3d) 473 at 475476 per Jerome ACJ.
2. The European Economic Community refers to trade secrets as ‘know-how’ - see definition in Commission Regulation (EEC) 556/89, art 1, 1(7): ‘a body of technical information that is secret, substantial and identifiable in any appropriate form’.
3. See Stedmans, J ‘Trade secrets’ (1962) 23 Ohio St LJ 4 at 14Google Scholar.
4. See Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd (1999) 167 DLR (4th) 577 at 591 per Binnie J; Law Commission of the United Kingdom Working Paper No 58 Breach of Confidence (London: HMSO, 1981) at 11; and Guny, F Breach of Confidence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) p 25 Google Scholar.
5. If the formula were copyright, or expressed in copyright material, the World Intellectual Property Organisation Copyright Treaty 1996 recommends civil liability for by-passing technological protection in order to reach it: see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (United States). Comparable legislation has yet to appear elsewhere.
6. See Apotex Fermentation Inc v Novopharm Ltd (1998) 80 CPR (3d) 449 (Manitoba CA). Such processes are ‘the paradigm’ of information which can be confidential: American Cyanamid Co v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1993) 27 IPR 16 at 21 per Drummond J.
7. Given that the photographer's surreptitious conduct indicated an awareness that photography was not permitted: see Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 1 (UK HC ChD); see also Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd (1994) EMLR 134.
8. See Gray, K ‘Property in thin air’ (1991) CLJ 252 at 269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar (photo-opportunity and secret communications of the petrochemical company as ‘physically non-excludable resources’) and 273-283 (employee's knowledge as a ‘legally’ or ‘morally’ non-excludable resource).
9. Using examples from Lord Goff s speech in A-G (UK) v Observer Ltd (1990) 1 AC 109 at 281.
10. See Guny, n 4 above, pp 275–282 and Ricketson, S The Law of Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs & Confidential Information (Sydney: LBC Info Services, 2nd edn, 1999)Google Scholar para 25.125, citing Nicrotherm Electrical Co Ltd v Percy (1956) RPC 272 at 281 and Printers & Finishers Ltd v Holloway (1965) RPC 239 at 253.
11. Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 39 at 50 per Mason J, adopting the words of Swinfen Eady LJ in Ashburton v Pape (1913) 2 Ch 469 at 475 (CA).
12. Australian Corporations Act 2001, s 183 (re-enacted in 1999): ‘(1) A person who obtains information because they are, or have been, a director or other officer or employee of a corporation must not improperly use the information to: (a) gain an advantage for themselves or someone else; or (b) cause detriment to the corporation.’
New Zealand Companies Act 1993, s 145 (inserted in 1996): ‘Use of company information; (1) A director of a company who has information in his or her capacity as a director or employee of the company, being information that would not otherwise be available to him or her, must not disclose that information to any person, or make use of, or act on the information except…’
13. See more limited regimes in eg the Canada Business Corporations Act 1985 and the Ontario Business Corporations Act 1994, s 132.
14. Three of the elements are set out in Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969) RPC 41 at 4748 per Megany J, the authority of which has been approved by the highest tribunals. Gummow J in Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byme v Collector of Customs (1987) 14 FCR 434 at 443 suggested including the first element, citing Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co (1948) 65 RPC 203 at 205.
15. No distinction is drawn, usually, between the contractual and purely equitable obligation. See United Sterling Corpn Ltd v Felton and Mannion (1974) RPC 135 at 141 per Brightman J and Curry, n 4 above, pp 58–61; Finn, P Fiduciary Obligations (Sydney: Law Book Co, 1977) p 159.Google Scholar
16. See Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 657 per La Forest J.
17. (1990) 1 AC 109 at 281.
18. See Scott, A ‘The fiduciary principle’ (1949) 37 Calif LR 539 at 540CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sealey, L ‘Fiduciary relationships’ (1962) Camb LJ 69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Weinrib, E ‘The fiduciary obligation’ (1975) 25 U of T LJ 1 at 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19. See Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corpn Inc (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 96 per Mason J; Parkinson, P ‘Fiduciary Obligations’ in Parkinson, P (ed) The Principles of Equity (Sydney: LBC Info Services, 1996) pp 326–331 Google Scholar; Flannigan, R ‘The fiduciary obligation’ (1989) 90 JLS 285 at 301Google Scholar; Goff, R and Jones, G The Law of Restitution 5th edn by Jones, G (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 5th edn, 1998) pp 713–714 Google Scholar: ten relationships ‘well known to be fiduciary’; cf Hayton, D J Underhill and Hayton Law of Trusts and Trustees (London: Butterworths, 15th edn, 1995) p 17 Google Scholar: ‘contexts’ where persons (other than trustees) have been held to be fiduciaries.
20. Discussed by Binnie J in Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd (1 999) 167 DLR (4th) at 577, 588 (judgment of court).
21. Discussed in Glover, J Commercial Equity: Fiduciary Relationships (Sydney: Butterworths, 1995)Google Scholar para 1.12.
22. See Finn, P ‘The Fiduciary Principle’ in Youdan, T (ed) Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Toronto: Carswell, 1989) pp 1, 54.Google Scholar
23. See Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corpn (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 96-102 per Mason J; Ben-Israel v Vitacare Medical Products Inc (1997) 78 CPR (3d) 94 at 107-108 per Beaulieu J.
24. Eg De Mott, D ‘Beyond metaphor: an analysis of fiduciary obligation’ (1988) DLJ 879 at 915Google Scholar.
25. Discussed by La Forest J in Lac Minerals Ltd v Intl Corona Resources Lrd (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 651–652, referring to disapproval of this type of fiduciary reasoning by Megarry V-C in Tito v Waddell (No 2) (1977) 3 All ER 129 at 231–232 and P Birks in (1987) LMCLQ 421 at 436.
26. In the United Kingdom, see Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd (1981) Ch 105 per Goulding J and English v Dedham Vale Properties Ltd (1978) 1 WLR 93 per Slade J; in Canada, see Plaza Fibreglass Manufacturing Ltd v Cardinal Insurance Co (1990) 68 DLR (4th) 586 (Ont HC); Burns v Kelly Peters Associates Ltd (1987) 41 DLR (4th) 577 (BC CA).
27. See n 1 above.
28. Following Mitchell, A ‘The jurisdictional basis of trade secret actions’ (1997) 8 AIPJ 134 Google Scholar.
29. See Mitchell, n 28 above, at 139; Gurry, n 4 above, pp 7–8 and Dean, R The Law of Trade Secrets (Sydney: Law Book Co, 1990) p 9 Google Scholar.
30. See Apotex Fermentation Inc v Novopharm Ltd (1998) 80 CPR (3d) 449 at 497 (Manitoba CA).
31. Indata Equipment Supplies Ltd v ACL Ltd (1998) FSR 248 per Otton LJ, Simon Brown and Owen LJJ agreeing (UK CA).
32. See International News Service v Associated Press 248 US 215 (1918); Kewanee Oil Co v Bicron Corp (1974) 416 US 470; Callman, R ‘What is unfair competition?’ (1940) 28 Geo LJ 585 Google Scholar; Dean, n 29 above, pp 26–27.
33. Hubbard v Vosper (1972) 2 QB 84 (CA).
34. Fraser v Evans (1969) QB 349 at 361 (CA).
35. Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd (1946) 1 Ch 169 (CA) at 178 per Greene MR, 180–181 per Morton LJ.
36. See eg American Cyanamid Co v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1993) 27 IPR 16 at 19–20 per Northrop J (Fed Ct of Aust).
37. See Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (191) 28 FCR 291 (FC of Fed Ct) at 304–305, rejecting the ‘reasonable man’ hypothesis of Megarry J in Coco VAN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969) RPC 4148–4150.
38. Eg in Seager v Copydex (No 2) (1969) 2 All ER 718 at 719 per Denning MR.
39. See Spector, H ‘An outline of a theory justifying intellectual property and industrial property rights’ (1989) 8 European Intellectual Property Review 1 Google Scholar.
40. Contra property: Moorgate Tobacco Co v Philip Morris Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 414 at 438 per Deane J; FCT v United Aircraft Corp (1943) 68 CLR 525 at 534–535 per Latham CJ; EI Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co v Masland 244 US 100 (1917) at 102 per Holmes J; Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd (1999) 167 DLR (4th) 577 at 596 per Binnie J; R v Stewart (1988) (1988) 1 SCR 963 per Lamer J. For property: Weinrib, E ‘Information as property’ (1988) 38 UTU 117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, n 28 above at 146.
41. See text at n 8 above and Curry, n 4 above, pp 12–15, discussing Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 1 Mac & G 25, 41 ER 1171.
42. See Hart, H Law, Liberty and Morality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) pp 69–81 Google Scholar; Rawls, J A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) pp 195–242 Google Scholar.
43. See text at n 17 above.
44. Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 647.
45. See Thompson v Leach (1690) 2 Vent 198 at 206, 86 ER 391 at 396 per Ventris J; Townson v Tickell (1819) 3 B & Ald 31, 106 ER 575.
46. See Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 96–97 per Mason J.
47. See Bamett, R ‘A consent theory of contract’ (1986) 86 Col LR 269 Google Scholar on personal autonomy as a basis for contract obligations; Rouhette, G ‘The obligatory force of contract in French law’ in Harris, D and Tallon, D (eds) Contract Law Today (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) pp 38, 57–70Google Scholar on Savigny and ‘autonomy of the will’; Keeler, F and Fine, E ‘ Culpa in Contrahendo, Bargaining in good faith and freedom of contract’ (1964) 77 Harv LR 401 Google Scholar -fairness and good faith as an alternative; but cf Gilmour, G The Death of Contract (Columbus: Ohio St UP, 1974) pp 87–100 Google Scholar: ‘doctrinal disintegration’ of contract law obligations.
48. See Palmer, G. The Law of Restitution vol 1 (Boston: Little Brown, 1978) p 141 Google Scholar.
49. See Goff and Jones, n 19 above, p 718.
50. See Birks, P An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) pp 332–333 Google Scholar.
51. See the reasoning in Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas t King 61,25 ER 223; York Buildings Co v MacKenzie (1795) 8 Bro P C 42, 3 ER 432 (HL); Aberdeen Railway Co v Blakie Bros (1854) 1 Macq 461, [1843-60] All ER 249 at 252 per Lord Cranworth; Parker v McKenna (1874) LR 10 Ch App 96 at 118 per Lord Cairns LC; and Sealy, L ‘Some principles of fiduciary obligation’ [1963] CLJ 119 at 125-132CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinrib, n 18 above, at 4.
52. See text at n 21 above.
53. Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 142 per Dawson J.
54. See Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Smith (1991) 102 ALR 453.
55. See Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 163 per Dawson J, 203 per Toohey J; Guerin v R (1984) 2 SCR 335; Delgamuukw v The Queen in right of British Columbia (1991) 79 DLR (4th) 185.
56. Eg ‘property theory’, where prevention of misappropriation defines the interests of trusting parties: see Posner, R Economic Analysis of Law (Boston: Little Brown, 3rd edn 1986) p 384 Google Scholar; Anderson, A ‘Conflicts of interest, efficiency, fairness and corporate structure’ (1978) 25 UCLALR 738 Google Scholar; Shavell, R ‘Risk sharing, and incentives in the principal and agent relationship’ (1979) 10 Bell J Econ 55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brudney, V and Clark, R ‘A new look at corporate opportunities’ (1981) 94 Harv LR 997 at 999CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eg ‘reliance theory’, protecting a trusting party's right to rely on a fiduciary - either hypothetically or in fact: see Finn, n 22 above, pp 33–54; 36A Corpus Juris Secundum (St Paul: West, 1936-2001) pp 381–389; 37 Am Juris 2d Fraud and Deceit (New York: Lawyers Co-op, 1968) at 16.
57. Weinrib, n 18 above, at 4.
58. Discussed in Newman, R Equity in the World's Legal Systems: A Comparative Study (New York: Oceana Publications, 1973) pp 15–29 Google Scholar.
59. At nn 5-1 above.
60. Eg Cooter, R and Freeman, B ‘The fiduciary relationship: its economic character and legal consequences’ (1996) 66 NYULR 1045 Google Scholar; Anderson, A ‘Conflicts of interest: efficiency, fairness and corporate structure’ (1978) 25 UCLALR 738 Google Scholar; Bishop, W and Prentice, D ‘Some legal and economic aspects of fiduciary remuneration’ (1983) 46 MLR 289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trebilcock, M ‘An economic approach to the doctrine of unconscionability’ in Reiter, B and Swan, J (eds) Studies in Contract Law (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980)Google Scholar.
61. Following Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics Book 5, ch 10 and Aristotle Rhetoric Book 1, ch 13.
62. See De Mott, n 24 above, at 915; Gatreau, J ‘Demystifying the fiduciary mystique’ (1989) 68 Can Bar Rev 1 at 17Google Scholar and Jones, G ‘Unjust enrichment and the fiduciary's duty of loyalty’ (1968) 84 LQR 472 Google Scholar.
63. See Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 615 per Sopinka J; Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd 167 DLR (4th) 576 at 588 per Binnie J (SC); Corrs, Pavey, Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (1987) 14 FCR 434 at 456458 per Gummow J; Curry, n 4 above, pp 25–61.
64. See discussion of La Forest J in Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 678–679.
65. See text at n 9 above.
66. (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 60M01; also Curry, n 4 above, p 160, citing Baker v Gibbons (1972) 1 WLR 693 at 700 per Pennycuick V-C; and Finn, n 15 above, p 142; cf Laskin J in Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O'Malley (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 371 at 388: ‘the fact that breach of confidence or violation of copyright may itself afford a ground of relief does not make either one a necessary ingredient of a successful claim for breach of fiduciary duty.’
67. See Hoyano, L ‘The flight to the fiduciary haven’ in Birks, P Privacy and Loyalty (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) p 169.Google Scholar
68. See Mar-Con Corpn Pty Ltd v Campbell Capital Ltd (1989) 16 IPR 153 at 163 per Giles J (SC of NSW) -rejecting the ‘implied importation of duties’ entailed by an argument that a party's fiduciary status impressed information supplied to it with the quality of confidence.
69. (2001) 1 AC 268; reversing (1998) Ch 439 (CA); reversing [19971 Ch 84.
70. See (1997) Ch 84 at 91 (first instance).
71. (1997) Ch 84 at 9 1 per Scott V-C. Blake was also said to be under a duty not to misuse his ‘fiduciary position’ - see Reading vA-G (1949) 2 KB 232 at 236 per Asquith LJ (CA).
72. At 92-93; (1990) 1 AC 109 (‘the Spycatcher case’).
73. Undertaking extracted in the speech of Lord Nicholls (2000) 1 AC 268 at 277 (emphasis added).
74. Noted by Scott V-C (1997) Ch 84 at 91. 75. (1998) Ch 439 at 453 per Lord Woolf MR.
76. (1998) Ch 439 at 444, in arguendo, referring to sections of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
77. (1998) Ch 439 at 454, quoting Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates (1995) 2 AC 145,206.
78. (1998) Ch 439 at 454.
79. (1998) Ch 439 at 454.
80. (1998) Ch 439 at 454.
81. (1998) Ch 439 at 454.
82. (1998) Ch 439 at 454.
83. (1998) Ch 439 at 455.
84. Namely, a contravention of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The Court of Appeal granted the Attomey-General an injunction to prevent Blake from receiving any payment or benefit from the publication of his book: see (1998) Ch 439 at 464–465.
85. (2001) 1 AC 268.
86. (2001) 1 AC 268 at 289 per Lord Nicholls, Lords Goff, Browne-Wilkinson, Steyn and Hobhouse agreeing.
87. (2001) 1 AC 268 at 287–288 per Lord Nicholls, Lords Goff, Browne-Wilkinson and Steyn agreeing; Lord Hobhouse dissenting at 298–299.
88. (2001) 1 AC 268 at 279–280, referring to Hogg v Kirby (1803) 8 Ves Jun 215 at 223.
89. (2001) 1 AC 268 at 280.
90. (2001) 1 AC 268 at 287.
91. (2001) 1 AC 268 at 291–292 (emphasis added).
92. See Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver (1942) (1967) 2 AC 134n at 147 per Lord Russell, 154 per Lord MacMillan, 157 per Lord Wright, 159 per Lord Porter; and Peso Silver Mines Ltd v Cropper (1966) 58 DLR (2d) 1 (SC).
93. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 (CA).
94. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 at 687 per Richardson P, Gault and Keith JJ.
95. (2001) 1 AC 268.
96. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 at 689 per Richardson P, Gault and Keith JJ.
97. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 at 700 per Richardson P, Gault and Keith JJ.
98. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 at 689–693 per Richardson P, Gault and Keith JJ - rejecting contrary evidence of merchant banking practice as ‘too widely stated’.
99. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 at 736–737.
100. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 at 736–737, Blanchard J agreeing.
101. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 at 733, quoting Woolf MR in A-G v Blake (1998) Ch439 at 454,455.
102. (1999) FSR 291; see also the similar facts of Dart Industries Inc v David Bryar & Associates Pvt Ltd (1997) 38 IPR 389 (Fed Ct of Aust).
103. (1999) FSR 291 at 302 (confidence), 303–307 (fiduciary duty).
104. (1999) FSR 291 at 302, following the ‘business opportunity’ cases of Haw Par Brothers International Ltd v Jack Chiarapark (1991) 2 MLJ 428 and Canadian Aerospace Services Ltd v O'Malley (1973) 40 DLR 37 1.
105. (1996) 37 IPR 22; see also Fortuity Pty Ltd v Barcza (1995) 32 IPR 517(SC of WA) and Rhino Systems International Pty Ltd v Canon Standish (Australia) Pty Ltd (1997) 41 IPR 367 (SC of Qld).
106. (1996) 37 IPR 22 at 36.
107. (1989) 2 SCR 574.
108. At first instance, breaches of confidence and fiduciary duty were found and an account of profits was ordered less an allowance to Lac for its expenditure on the mine: (1986) 53 OR (2d) 737. The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a constructive trust and both heads of liability were confirmed: (1987) 62 OR (2d) I. Appeal to the Supreme Court was restricted to whether a fiduciary relationship had been breached, what should be the remedy, and whether Lac's breach of confidence deprived Corona of the land: [19891 2 SCR 574.
109. (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 656.
110. (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 659–660.
111. (1989) 2 SCR 574 at 662.
112. Expressed in Finn, n 22 above, p 36, adopting his earlier position in n 15 above, pp 130–168.
113. See text at n 2 above.
114. Compare Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd (1999) 167 DLR (4th) 577 at 593 (SC) per Binnie J (for the court): something ‘special’ (and additional) is needed ‘to elevate’ a duty not to misuse confidential information into a fiduciary duty.
115. Adopting Binnie J's analysis of the case in Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd (1999) 167 DLR (4th) 577 at 589 (SC of Canada).
116. (2001) 1 AC 268.
117. (1998) 3 NZLR 680 (CA).
118. See Roberts, R ‘Corporate opportunity and confidential information: birds of a feather or Canaeros of a different colour’ (1976) 28 CPR (2d) 68 at 87.Google Scholar
119. Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (1999) 2 AC 222 at 235 per Lord Millett, other Lords agreeing.
120. Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd (1946) 1 Ch 169 at 180 per Morton LJ (CA); and see Roberts, n 1 18 above, at 79.
121. Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (1999) 2 AC 222 at 235; see Hollander, C and Salzedo, S Conflicts of Interest & Chinese Walls (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000) pp 14–15.Google Scholar
122. Cf ‘public policy’ extension of fiduciary duties after termination of retainers in Wan v McDonald (1992) 33 FCR 491 and Russell McVeigh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower Corporation (1998) 3 NZLR 641 at 647–648 (CA).
123. See Exp James (1803) 8 Ves Jun 337, 32 ER 385 at 388; Exp Lacey (1802) 6 Ves 625, 31 ER 1228 at 1229; but cf Holder v Holder (1968) Ch 353 at 398 (CA).
124. See Furs v Tomkies (1936) 54 CLR 583 at 592: Industrial Development Consultants v Cooley (1972) 1 WLR 443 at 451; Canadian Aero Services Ltd Y O'Malley (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 37 1 (SC of Can); Island Export Services Ltd v Urnunna (1986) BCLC 460: Chorion plc v Lane (1999) 22 IPD 22,070.
125. (1998) Ch 439.
126. (1998) 3 NZLR 680.
127. (1996) 37 IPR 22 (SC of NSW).
128. (1999) FSR 291 (HC of Malaysia).
129. (1989) 2 SCR 574.
130. See Austin, R ‘Moulding the content of fiduciary duties’ in Oakley, A (ed) Trends in Contemporary Trusts Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) pp 153, 161.Google Scholar
131. Discussed in Lowry, J and Edmunds, R ‘The corporate opportunity doctrine: the shifting boundaries of duty and its remedies’ (1998) 61 MLR 515 at 534–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
132. See Austin, R ‘Fiduciary accountability for business opportunities’ in Finn, P (ed) Equity and Commercial Relationships (Sydney: Law Book Co, 1987) pp 141, 153.Google Scholar
133. Canadian Aero Services Ltd v O'Malley (1973) 49 DLR (3d) 371 at 382–385, following an ‘imprecise ethical standard’ exemplified by Burg v Horn 380 F (2d) 897 (1967). See now American Law Institute Principles of Corporare Governance vol 1 (St Paul: American Law Institute, 1994 Google Scholar) s 5.05.
134. (1942) 1 All ER 378, (1967) 2 AC 134n.
135. See Cooter and Freedman, n 60 above, at 1066.
136. Paraphrasing s 5.05 of American Law Institute, n 133 above.
137. (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 37 1.
138. (1972) 23 DLR (3d) 632.
139. (1972) 23 DLR (3d) 632 at 644.
140. (1972) 23 DLR (3d) 632 at 644: ‘The opportunity… only arose when the Canadian government decided to finance the project and invited all of the companies operating in this field to submit proposals. At this stage the opportunity was not exclusive to the plaintiff, it was common knowledge to all companies engaged in this field of work.’
141. (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 371 at 390.
142. Eg Smith v Harrison (1872) 27 LTR 188 (PC); Exp James (1803) 8 Ves Jun 337, 32 ER 385, discussed in Roberts, n 118 above, at 81–82.
143. (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 371 at 387; the American Law Institute's Principles of Corporate Governance, n 133 above, s 5.05 is similarly ambiguous.
144. Overcoming the Ontario CA decision: see n 140 above.
145. Distinguishing Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver (1942) 1 All ER 378, (1967) 2 AC 134n: see at 149 per Lord Russell.
146. The Australian experience? See Lord Browne-Wilkinson's discussion of the “‘reach me down a fiduciary” syndrome’ in ‘Equity in a fast changing world’ 1996 New Zealand Law Conference Papers, vol 2, at 170 Google Scholar, 172.
