Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
