The Supreme Court held that a Sheikh who purported to exercise a director’s powers in relation to a liquidated company owed fiduciary duties to the company and, having breached them by making a dishonest transfer of shares, was liable as though he was a lawfully appointed fiduciary.
Considering whether the company had a remedy against the Sheikh in equitable compensation, the Supreme Court confirmed that the appropriate date to use to assess the value of what has been misappropriated will be the date that the court considers to be just and equitable in the circumstances.
The court also clarified that the burden of proof lies on a defaulting fiduciary to prove that a later event broke the chain of causation between their breach of fiduciary duty and the loss.
Read the full judgment here.
