A solicitor acting for both vendor and purchaser in a conveyancing transaction does not breach fiduciary duty merely because a conflict of interest exists, provided the parties are aware of the conflict. The mere existence of a conflict does not constitute a breach; the question is whether the interests of one client were preferred over the other. Where a solicitor acted with reasonable expedition in circumstances where completion was delayed by matters outside the solicitor's control (here, third-party estate administration and stamp duty compliance), no negligence is established. Claims for equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty require proof of causation — there is no equitable bypass of that requirement.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.