Skip to main content Skip to footer 
Directors occupy positions of considerable trust within the companies they serve. They control company assets, make decisions that determine company fortunes, and access information and opportunities that arise directly from their role. The law responds to this reality by imposing fiduciary duties that require directors to prioritise company interests ahead of their own personal interests in everything they do.
When directors breach these duties, they face personal liability to compensate the company for losses caused. Tower Bridge Legal advises companies and liquidators pursuing such claims, and defends directors against allegations of breach. We understand the substantive law thoroughly and bring extensive practical experience of how these disputes develop and resolve.
What Fiduciary Duties Actually Demand
Fiduciary duties differ fundamentally from the ordinary obligations that arise in commercial relationships. In a normal arm’s length transaction, each party looks after their own interests. Buyers try to pay as little as possible. Sellers try to charge as much as they can. Neither owes the other any duty of loyalty.
Fiduciary relationships work differently. The fiduciary must act in the interests of another person rather than in their own interests. Self-interest must be subordinated. Loyalty must be genuine and complete. The standard is demanding precisely because the beneficiary has entrusted important matters to someone else’s control.
For directors, fiduciary duties translate into several specific requirements. Company interests must come first in all decision-making. Directors must not place themselves in positions where their personal interests conflict with company interests, unless proper authorisation has been obtained. They must not profit from their position without informed consent from those entitled to give it. They must exercise their powers for the purposes for which those powers were conferred, not for personal advantage or to achieve ulterior goals.
The statutory duties must be interpreted consistently with the underlying equitable principles, meaning the extensive body of judicial precedent built up over generations remains directly relevant to modern disputes.
How Directors Typically Breach Their Duties
Certain breach patterns recur across different cases, industries and company types. Understanding these patterns helps both in identifying potential claims and in avoiding conduct that creates exposure.
Corporate opportunity diversion represents a classic form of breach. A director learns through their position of a business opportunity that would interest the company. Perhaps a potential acquisition target, a major new customer, or a promising joint venture. Instead of presenting the opportunity to the company and letting the board decide whether to pursue it, the director takes it for themselves or diverts it to another business they control. This breaches both the duty to avoid conflicts and the duty not to profit from the directorial position.
Self-dealing transactions create obvious concerns. Directors who cause companies to enter transactions with themselves, their family members, or businesses they control must ensure scrupulous disclosure of their interest and proper authorisation of the transaction by those without conflicting interests. Failure to follow correct procedures renders transactions voidable and may create personal liability for any resulting losses. Even where proper procedures are followed, transactions must still be fair. Using proper procedures to rubber-stamp obviously unfair deals provides no protection.
Competition with the company while serving as a director creates inherent conflicts that cannot easily be resolved. Directors who set up rival businesses, who divert customers or staff to competitors, or who use confidential information acquired through their directorial role to benefit competing enterprises breach their duties fundamentally. The duty of loyalty requires single-minded focus on company interests, which is incompatible with simultaneously pursuing competing interests.
Misuse of company resources and information for personal benefit breaches the duty not to profit from the position. Taking company funds for personal use is the obvious example, but the principle extends further.
The Range of Remedies
The remedial response to fiduciary breach reflects how seriously the law treats director disloyalty. Multiple remedies may be available, and courts have considerable flexibility in fashioning appropriate relief.
Compensation aims to put the company in the position it would have occupied had the breach not occurred. Where breach caused identifiable financial loss, the director must make that loss good. Calculating loss can involve complex counterfactual questions about what would have happened absent the breach, but the basic principle is straightforward.
Account of profits operates differently. It strips the director of any gain made through breach, regardless of whether the company itself suffered any loss. A director who diverted a corporate opportunity to themselves must surrender the profits even if the company could not have exploited that opportunity itself. The principle is that breach should never be profitable. Fiduciaries must not benefit from their wrongdoing even if their beneficiary was not harmed by it.
Proprietary remedies may allow recovery of specific property obtained through breach. Where a director acquired assets using company resources or opportunities, the company may be able to claim those assets through constructive trust principles. This can prove particularly valuable where assets have appreciated in value or where the director might otherwise become insolvent.
Rescission can unwind transactions entered into in breach of fiduciary duty, returning parties to their original positions. This remedy has limitations, including protection for innocent third parties who have since acquired interests in the relevant property, but remains available in appropriate circumstances.
Who Can Bring Claims
Directors owe fiduciary duties to the company itself, not to individual shareholders. The company is therefore the proper claimant in breach of duty proceedings. This creates practical difficulty where the directors who committed the breach remain in control of the company and will obviously not authorise proceedings against themselves.
Shareholders can address this problem through derivative claims brought on the company’s behalf. Court permission is required. The court will only grant permission where satisfied that a prima facie case of breach exists, that pursuing the claim accords with the duty to promote company success, and that the claim is genuinely in company interests rather than being motivated by collateral purposes. The procedural requirements are demanding, but derivative claims provide a real route to accountability where companies are controlled by wrongdoers.
Liquidators step into the company’s shoes on appointment and can pursue fiduciary breach claims without needing separate court permission. Indeed, investigating director conduct and pursuing viable claims forms part of their statutory function. Liquidators routinely examine whether directors breached their duties during the period leading up to insolvency and pursue claims where breaches caused creditor losses.
Defending Against Allegations
Directors accused of fiduciary breach need experienced legal representation. Allegations are serious, but not every allegation is well-founded. Strong defences often exist.
Proper authorisation can provide complete answers. Many potential conflicts of interest can be authorised in advance by boards or shareholders following appropriate procedures. Directors who obtained proper authorisation before proceeding with transactions or activities that might otherwise create conflicts have powerful defences. The key lies in demonstrating that disclosure was full and that authorisation came from persons entitled to give it, acting with full knowledge of relevant circumstances.
Statutory relief allows courts to excuse directors who acted honestly and reasonably, even where some technical breach occurred. This protection matters particularly for directors who made genuine mistakes in good faith, who were unaware that their conduct might constitute breach, or who found themselves in difficult situations through no fault of their own. Courts have discretion to relieve directors from liability wholly or partly where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Limitation defences may defeat claims depending on when breach occurred. Standard claims face six-year limitation periods, though fraud or concealment can extend time. Claims involving constructive trusteeship may face different limitation rules. Analysing which regime applies often proves crucial.
Causation arguments can reduce or eliminate liability. Directors can argue that the losses now claimed were not actually caused by the breach, or would have occurred in any event due to factors entirely unconnected with director conduct. Breaking the causal chain between breach and loss defeats or reduces compensation claims even where breach is established.
The Human Dimension
Fiduciary breach claims frequently arise in emotionally charged circumstances, such as failed business partnerships where former friends have become bitter enemies; family company breakdowns where relationships spanning decades have collapsed; or long-running disputes where allegations and counter-allegations have escalated progressively over years.
We approach these situations with understanding of the human dynamics while maintaining focus on what the law actually requires. For claimants, we build cases methodically, identifying precisely what breach occurred and establishing clearly what loss it caused. For defendants, we examine claims carefully for weaknesses, develop robust defences, and present cases persuasively.
Achieving Practical Outcomes
Settlement resolves many fiduciary breach disputes before trial. Early realistic assessment of claim strength enables productive negotiation toward commercial resolution. Both sides typically benefit from avoiding trial costs, delays and uncertainties where reasonable settlement terms can be agreed.
Where settlement proves impossible, we prepare thoroughly and present the strongest possible case. Our litigation experience spans straightforward applications through to complex multi-day High Court trials. We understand what courts expect and how to present evidence and argument persuasively.
Our Experience
We have handled fiduciary breach claims across diverse circumstances, from straightforward self-dealing cases through to complex disputes involving corporate opportunity diversion and improper purpose allegations. This experience informs realistic assessment of how particular cases will likely develop and what outcomes are achievable.
Whether pursuing directors for breach or defending against allegations, we combine legal rigour with practical commercial awareness. The aim is always achieving outcomes that genuinely serve client interests, efficiently and cost-effectively.
Contact Tower Bridge Legal if you face a fiduciary duty dispute, whether bringing or defending a claim.
