The no-conflict rule: the acceptance of traditional equitable values?

摘要

Boardman v Phipps is a leading authority on the no-conflict rule. The House of Lords maintained the strict rule that historically equity has imposed on a fiduciary. This article explores how the dissenting judgment of Lord Upjohn in Boardman v Phipps has been preferred by the lower courts and why the courts have adopted such a position. This has fuelled a more general debate as to whether the no-conflict rule should be harsh or more flexible. Recent cases including Bhullar v Bhullar are discussed to illustrate the present approach of the courts to the recurring issues surrounding possible applications of the no-conflict rule.