November 15, 2025

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY – UK SUPREME COURT SHUTS DOWN ‘WHAT IF’ DEFENCE IN FIDUCIARY BREACH: NO PROFIT MEANS NO EXCUSE

1. Summary and Facts

In Rukhadze & Ors v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329, the appellants were former fiduciaries (directors/partners) of SCPI and Revoker LLP, firms involved in complex international asset recovery services following the death of a Georgian billionaire. After a fallout, the appellants resigned and formed their own entity, Hunnewell, to secure the same contract with the deceased’s family, using confidential knowledge gained during their fiduciary tenure.

The respondents, successors to SCPI, sued for an account of profits, claiming the appellants breached fiduciary duties by exploiting a business opportunity belonging to SCPI and Revoker. The High Court awarded USD 134 million (after a 25% equitable allowance), which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that liability should only arise if a “but for” test of causation was satisfied – i.e., the profits would not have been made but for the breach.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the strict equitable “no profit” rule for fiduciaries should be replaced or qualified by a common law “but for” causation test.
• Whether fiduciaries can escape liability by arguing they would have made the profit even without breaching their duties.
• The correct interpretation and scope of the fiduciary duty to account for profits, and the relevance of counterfactual scenarios (e.g., whether informed consent would have been given).

3. Court’s Findings

• The UK Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the strict application of the fiduciary profit rule.
• The duty to account for profits is a standalone equitable duty, not just a remedy for another breach. It arises once profits are made from or through the fiduciary position, even without dishonest intent.

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – NO RIGHT TO ARREST: MALAYSIAN COURT BLOCKS ABUSE OF ADMIRALTY LAW OVER U.S. SANCTIONS

In Unicious Energy Pte Ltd v The Owners of the ‘Alpine Mathilde’ [2023] MLJU 2819, the High Court set aside a vessel arrest brought solely to secure arbitration claims, holding it was an abuse of admiralty jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, an OFAC-designated SDN, had no valid claim due to U.S. sanctions, and the Court ruled that arrest for arbitration must strictly comply with section 11(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act 2005. This case reinforces the limits of in rem jurisdiction and the enforceability of sanctions clauses in cross-border charterparty disputes.

15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY – UK SUPREME COURT SHUTS DOWN ‘WHAT IF’ DEFENCE IN FIDUCIARY BREACH: NO PROFIT MEANS NO EXCUSE

In Rukhadze & Ors v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329, the UK Supreme Court reaffirmed the uncompromising “no profit” rule for fiduciaries. The Court held that a fiduciary who profits from their position must account for those gains – regardless of good faith, intent, or hypothetical outcomes. The appellants’ argument that they would have earned the profit even without a breach was firmly rejected. The decision emphasises that loyalty, not speculation, is the standard, and reaffirms equity’s strict stance on conflicts of interest.

15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EMPLOYMENT – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL VIA TRANSFER: WHEN MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE CROSSES THE LINE

In Saharunzaman bin Barun v Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 17, the Court of Appeal reinstated the Industrial Court’s decision that three long-serving employees were constructively dismissed after being ordered to report for duty at distant branches within three days, following their refusal to resign and accept a fixed-term contract with an associated company. The Court found that Perodua’s actions were unreasonable, mala fide, and amounted to a fundamental breach of the employment contract, especially as no valid work permits were arranged for postings in Sabah and Sarawak. The ruling affirms that “reasonableness” clauses in transfer provisions carry enforceable weight and cannot be used as tools for disguised terminations.

15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – WHEN SILENCE HURTS: COURT SLAMS GOVERNMENT WITH RM2M+ IN AMPUTATION NEGLIGENCE SUIT

In L/Kpl Naraayanan Nair a/l Subramaniam v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2025] 8 MLJ 503, the High Court delivered a landmark ruling in a medical negligence suit involving a young police corporal who lost his arm due to delayed and negligent treatment. Citing emotional trauma, denial of timely access to medical records, and ongoing life-altering consequences, the court awarded over RM2 million in damages – including RM200,000 in aggravated damages – this shows the judiciary’s increasing emphasis on dignity, transparency, and rehabilitative justice in personal injury claims.

15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT OF DEFAMATION – NO MALICE, NO DEFAMATION: POLITICAL COMMENTARY STANDS PROTECTED

In Lim Guan Eng v Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 791, the Court of Appeal dismissed a defamation claim over a politically charged article alleging conditions tied to a RM4 million school allocation. The Court ruled that the statements – framed as a call for explanation – were not defamatory when read in full context. The defendants successfully relied on the defences of fair comment and reportage, with the Court emphasising that political commentary, if rooted in fact and honestly held, remains protected speech – even during an election campaign. Malice was not proven, and the article’s publication in a neutral “Letters to the Editor” section further insulated the publisher from liability.

15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY AND CONTRACT – RM49 MILLION MISTAKE? ADW2 STRUCK DOWN FOR NO CONSIDERATION DIMENSI SDN BHD LEGALLY VALID?

In Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd v Port Kelang Authority [2025] 2 MLJ 238, the Federal Court reaffirmed a core principle of contract law – no consideration, no contract. The Court held that the supplemental agreement (ADW2), which increased interest payable by RM49 million, was void for want of consideration, despite being acted upon. Notably, the Court rejected the “practical benefit” doctrine from Williams v Roffey, clarifying that Malaysian law continues to uphold traditional consideration requirements. Estoppel, too, could not rescue the agreement. This case sends a clear message: contractual variations must be backed by clear and enforceable consideration, or risk being struck down.

15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami