O'Donnell v Shanahan & Anor

O'Donnell v Shanahan & Anor

The respondents breached their fiduciary duties under the 'no profit' and 'no conflict' rules by acquiring the Aria House opportunity for themselves, using information obtained as directors, without informed consent of the company. The scope of the company's business is not a valid defence for directors' fiduciary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mary O'Donnell; Respondent: John Joseph Shanahan; Respondent: James Anthony Leonard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further inquiry
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, No Profit Rule, No Conflict Rule, Unfair Prejudice, Account of Profits, Acquiescence
Company Law Fiduciary Duties Directors' Duties No Profit Rule No Conflict Rule Unfair Prejudice Account of Profits Acquiescence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary O'Donnell

Appellant

John Joseph Shanahan

Respondent

James Anthony Leonard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents breached fiduciary duties under the 'no profit' and 'no conflict' rules by acquiring Aria House opportunity for themselves
  2. 2 Whether such breach unfairly prejudiced the appellant's interests as a member
  3. 3 Whether appellant acquiesced in the breach

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents breached their fiduciary duties under the 'no profit' and 'no conflict' rules by acquiring the Aria House opportunity for themselves, using information obtained as directors, without informed consent of the company. The scope of the company's business is not a valid defence for directors' fiduciary breaches. However, whether the failure to account for profits unfairly prejudiced the appellant as a member requires further inquiry.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further inquiry

Orders

  • Remit to trial judge the issue whether respondents' failure to account for profit on Aria House acquisition unfairly prejudiced appellant as a member
  • Respondents may not assert acquiescence by appellant in any breaches of duty