A solicitor who acts for both parties to a transaction without obtaining fully informed consent breaches fiduciary duty, but the client must still establish that the breach caused the loss. The Brickenden principle (precluding speculation about what the client would have done) does not apply where the breach is a conflict of duty rather than non-disclosure of a material fact that might have deterred the transaction. Where the client's own conduct (here, failure to provide a bank guarantee) caused the loss, and the client would have proceeded regardless of independent advice, the causal connection between breach and loss is not established.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.