146:(1973) 40 DLR (3rd) 371). Where, as here, the business was not restricted exclusively to the performance of contracts which were obtained from CMSD, the fiduciary should be accountable for the profits properly attributable to the breach of fiduciary duty, taking into account the expenses connected with those profits and a reasonable allowance for overheads (but not necessarily salary for the wrongdoer), together with a sum to take account of other benefits derived from those contracts, e.g. other contracts might not have been won, or profits made on them, without (for example) the opportunity or cash-flow benefit which flowed from the contracts unlawfully obtained. There must, however, be some reasonable connection between the breach of duty and the profits for which the fiduciary was accountable. 4 Where a director put contracts of a company into a partnership he was fully accountable even if his partners were entitled to part of the profit and were ignorant of his breach of fiduciary duty (
28:
128:
held that Mr
Simonet resigned without giving proper notice, and so he was in breach of contract. He had made no proper disclosure and had misused confidential information. The maturing business opportunities were the company's property, ‘where he knowingly had a conflict of interest, and exploited it
168:
since a director was equally liable with the corporate vehicle formed by him to take unlawful advantage of the business opportunities as they jointly participated in a breach of trust. It did not make any difference whether the business was taken up by a corporate vehicle directly or was first taken
133:
3 In many cases an account of profits would be a more advantageous remedy than equitable compensation since the actual profits obtained by a director might be higher than the damages for the loss of opportunity suffered by the company, particularly where the company had little or no prospect of
117:) and he set up a new company. CMS's staff followed and so did the major clients. CMS sued Mr Simonet for the profits he made, alleging that he had breached his duty of loyalty to the company. Mr Simonet contended that he owed no duty because he had left the company.
152:(1873) LR 6 HL 189). If the business was put into a company established by a director who had wrongfully taken advantage of the corporate opportunity, then both director and the new company were liable to account for profits (
148:
136:
129:
by resigning from the company’. Resignation was not a fiduciary power in itself, and no obligations continued after the end of the relationship.
218:
208:
160:
142:
213:
113:
Mr
Simonet resigned from his position as managing director of CMS Dolphin Ltd (a small advertising company on
165:
27:
102:
164:(supra)). It was not necessary, in order to establish liability, to resort to piercing or
8:
125:
114:
94:
60:
32:
179:
98:
202:
154:
169:
up by a director and then transferred to a company.
200:
149:Imperial Mercantile Credit Association v Coleman
137:Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley
134:obtaining the benefit of the opportunity (
26:
201:
161:Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O'Malley
143:Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O'Malley
13:
14:
230:
219:2001 in United Kingdom case law
209:United Kingdom company case law
1:
190:
7:
214:High Court of Justice cases
173:
120:
10:
235:
166:lifting the corporate veil
83:Duty of loyalty, resigning
91:CMS Dolphin Ltd v Simonet
82:
77:
72:
67:
56:
48:
40:
35:, home of CMS Dolphin Ltd
25:
21:CMS Dolphin Ltd v Simonet
20:
185:
108:
171:
131:
126:Lawrence Collins J
115:Charing Cross Road
73:Lawrence Collins J
103:directors' duties
87:
86:
226:
101:case concerning
33:Charing Cross Rd
30:
18:
17:
234:
233:
229:
228:
227:
225:
224:
223:
199:
198:
193:
188:
176:
123:
111:
36:
12:
11:
5:
232:
222:
221:
216:
211:
197:
196:
192:
189:
187:
184:
183:
182:
180:UK company law
175:
172:
122:
119:
110:
107:
99:UK company law
85:
84:
80:
79:
75:
74:
70:
69:
65:
64:
61:EWHC (Ch) 4159
58:
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
42:
38:
37:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
231:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
206:
204:
195:
194:
181:
178:
177:
170:
167:
163:
162:
157:
156:
151:
150:
145:
144:
139:
138:
130:
127:
118:
116:
106:
104:
100:
96:
93:
92:
81:
76:
71:
68:Case opinions
66:
63:, 2 BCLC 704
62:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
34:
29:
24:
19:
16:
159:
155:Cook v Deeks
153:
147:
141:
135:
132:
124:
112:
90:
89:
88:
15:
140:1 WLR 443;
95:EWHC Ch 415
52:23 May 2001
203:Categories
191:References
158:1 AC 554;
44:High Court
57:Citations
174:See also
121:Judgment
78:Keywords
49:Decided
186:Notes
109:Facts
97:is a
41:Court
205::
105:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
