ABSTRACT
The purpose of this chapter is to draw together some of our considerations of the idea of ‘fiduciary’ duties in this book. The idea of fiduciary responsibility is open-textured (in that the categories of fiduciary responsibility are always capable of expansion) and yet it is supported by some inflexible legal rules (relating to fiduciaries taking unauthorised profits and allowing conflicts of interest, preserving the confidence of their beneficiaries and acting with unswerving loyalty to the terms of their duties). This combination ensures protection for the beneficiaries of a fiduciary relationship once they have been accepted into the categories of fiduciary duty. Nevertheless, there are differences of opinion as to the extent of the fiduciary concept. Some judges, such as Millett LJ (as he was) preferred a model of fiduciary duties that was commercially convenient by limiting the scope of those fiduciary duties for professional fiduciaries so that many commercial arrangements would fall outside the fiduciary category altogether; whereas others, such as Lord Browne-Wilkinson, preferred an extensive model of fiduciary duties which applied broadly but the terms of which were dependent on the context. That difference of view emerges from the discussion to follow.
