Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver

Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver

"Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver and Ors", [1967] 2 A.C. 134 is a leading English decision on the companies law rule against directors and officers from taking corporate opportunities in violation of their duty of loyalty. The Court held that a director cannot take advantage of an opportunity that the corporation would otherwise be interested in but was unable to take advantage.


Regal owned a cinema in Hastings. They took out leases on two more, through a new subsidiary, to make the whole lot an attractive sale package. However, the landlord first wanted them to give personal guarantees. They did not want to do that. Instead the landlord said they could up share capital to £5,000. Regal itself put in £2,000, but could not afford more (though it could have got a loan). Four directors each put in £500, the Chairman, Mr Gulliver, got outside subscribers to put in £500 and the board asked the company solicitor, Mr Garten, to put in the last £500. They sold the business and made a cool £2.80 per share. But then the buyers brought an action against the directors, saying that this profit was in breach of their fiduciary duty to the company. They had not gained fully informed consent from the shareholders.


The House of Lords, reversing the High Court and the Court of Appeal, held that the defendants had made their profits “by reason of the fact that they were directors of Regal and in the course of the execution of that office”. They therefore had to account for their profits to the company. The governing principle was succinctly stated by Lord Russell of Killowen,

“The rule of equity which insists on those who by use of a fiduciary position make a profit, being liable to account for that profit, in no way depends on fraud, or absence of bona fides ; or upon questions or considerations as whether the property would or should otherwise have gone to the plaintiff, or whether he took a risk or acted as he did for the benefit of the plaintiff, or whether the plaintiff has in fact been damaged or benefited by his action. The liability arises from the mere fact of a profit having in the stated circumstances been made.”

Lord Wright said (at 157),

"The Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of any dishonest intention, or negligence, or breach of a specific duty to acquire the shares for the appellant company, the respondents as directors were entitled to buy the shares themselves. Once, it was said, they came to a bona fide decision that the appellant company could not provide the money to take up the shares, their obligation to refrain from acquiring those shares for themselves came to an end. With the greatest respect, I feel bound to regard such a conclusion as dead in the teeth of the wise and salutary rule so stringently enforced in the authorities. It is suggested that it would have been mere quixotic folly for the four respondents to let such an occasion pass when the appellant company could not avail itself of it; Lord King, L.C., faced that very position when he accepted that the person in the fiduciary position might be the only person in the world who could not avail himself of the opportunity."

ee also

*"Guth v. Loft", the Delaware decision that deviated from the strict approach.
*"Keech v. Sandford", the rule of equity that has been the bedrock of fiduciary duties for 280 years.


External links

* [ Full text of decision from]

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

См. также в других словарях:

  • Gulliver - все рабочие скидки Gulliver в категории Детская одежда и обувь

  • List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases — This page is for notable House of Lords legal cases. pre 1850 * Donaldson v. Beckett , 2 Brown s Parl. Cases 129, 1 Eng. Rep. 837; 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng. Rep. 257 (1774) * Wright v. Tatham (1838) 4 Bing. NC 489 : hearsay 1850 1899 * Dimes v Grand… …   Wikipedia

  • Fiduciary — One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, holds a fiduciary relation or acts in a fiduciary capacity to another, such as one whose funds are entrusted to it for investment. In a fiduciary relation one… …   Wikipedia

  • Directors' duties — are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors duties are… …   Wikipedia

  • Directors' duties in the United Kingdom — bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company. Contents 1 Scope 2 Duty to act for proper purposes 3 Duty of care 4 …   Wikipedia

  • Board of directors — For other uses of trustee , trusty , and related terms, see Trustee (disambiguation). Board Room redirects here. For the Board Room member lounge, see Alaska Airlines. trustee in trust redirects here. A board of directors is a body of elected or… …   Wikipedia

  • Keech v. Sandford — (1726) Sel Cas. Ch.61; [1558 1774] All ER Rep 230 is a foundational case on the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It concerns the law of trusts and has affected much of the thinking on directors duties in company law.FactsA child had inherited the lease …   Wikipedia

  • United Kingdom company law — Beside the River Thames, the City of London is a global financial centre. Within the Square Mile, the London Stock Exchange lies at the heart of the United Kingdom s corporations. United Kingdom company law is the body of rules that concern… …   Wikipedia

  • Industrial Development Consultants v. Cooley — [1972] 1 WLR 443 is a UK company law case on the corporate opportunities doctrine, and the duty of loyalty from the law of trusts.FactsMr. Cooley was an architect and the managing director of IDC. The Eastern Gas Board has a lucrative contract… …   Wikipedia

  • Boardman v. Phipps — [1967] 2 AC 46 is an English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.FactsMr Boardman was the solicitor of a family trust. He and a beneficiary, Tom Phipps, went to a shareholders general meeting …   Wikipedia

  • ASIC v. Rich — Australian Securities Investments Commission v. Rich [2003] [ NSWSC 85] is an Australian corporate law case concerning the fiduciary duties of directors around… …   Wikipedia

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное

Прямая ссылка:
Нажмите правой клавишей мыши и выберите «Копировать ссылку»