Categories
Features Law & Politics Social Sciences

Fiduciary law and the case of Aparna and Beth

This essay was written by Lower Sixth Form student Charlie Everitt for submission to the Peter Cane Prize for Legal Reasoning, organised by Corpus Christi College, Oxford. His work was highly commended by the judges. The task was based on fiduciary law and a hypothetical case involving Aparna and Beth, who are both avid Pokémon collectors. The full task can be found outlined in the document below, alongside a full copy of Charlie’s essay. A brief extract is included here:

Fiduciary Law and the Fiduciary Act 2023

Fiduciary duties have long been recognised under English common law, generally arising when one party ‘has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence’[1]. In being a fiduciary it is thought that one should prioritise the desires and benefits of the other party, even above one’s own. This seems a logical concept when we consider certain categories of fiduciary relationship that are automatically recognised: for example, doctor and patient, solicitor and client, trustee and beneficiary. However, this is not a closed list and ad hoc fiduciary relationships can and do exist.

The Fiduciary Act 2023 (the “Act”) expressly provides (in Section 1(2)) that ‘Subject to this Act, fiduciary law remains in force’. The inference here is that the objective of the Act is to codify (or possibly extend) the existing law in some way. In the UK, a Court looking to interpret statutes should first attempt to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used. If plain meaning is in doubt the Court may opt for a purposive enquiry to determine the intent behind the statutory provision[2]. Therefore whilst the principles developed by the existing common law on fiduciary relationships may have some relevance, the starting point for the analysis of the posed case must be the wording of the Act.


[1] Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1

[2] Statutory Interpretation Explained, Ross R – 5. Pey, Cambridge University Law Society

Leave a comment