Ratiu & Ors v Conway

Ratiu & Ors v Conway

The judge erred in law by directing the jury that Mr Conway owed fiduciary duties only to Pristbrook and not to Regent, thereby withdrawing from the jury the central issue of whether a fiduciary relationship and breach existed. The judge also misdirected on the scope of conflict of interest and failed to properly distinguish between objective and subjective tests for justification and malice. There was insufficient evidence for the jury to find malice. The findings on justification and malice were set aside and the appeal allowed.

Parties
Appellant: NICOLAE CHRISTOPHER RATIU; Appellant: SIMON HARRY KARMEL; Appellant: REGENT HOUSE PROPERTIES LTD; Respondent: DAVID PETER CONWAY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Jury Trial
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Fiduciary Duty, Duty of Confidence, Qualified Privilege, Conflict of Interest, Damages
Defamation Professional Negligence Equity and Trusts Libel Malicious Falsehood Fiduciary Duty Duty of Confidence Qualified Privilege +2 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NICOLAE CHRISTOPHER RATIU

Appellant

SIMON HARRY KARMEL

Appellant

REGENT HOUSE PROPERTIES LTD

Appellant

DAVID PETER CONWAY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Conway owed a fiduciary duty to Regent and breached it by bidding for No 24 while acting as their solicitor on No 32
  2. 2 Whether Mr Conway breached a duty of confidence to Regent
  3. 3 Whether the defamatory letter was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by directing the jury that Mr Conway owed fiduciary duties only to Pristbrook and not to Regent, thereby withdrawing from the jury the central issue of whether a fiduciary relationship and breach existed. The judge also misdirected on the scope of conflict of interest and failed to properly distinguish between objective and subjective tests for justification and malice. There was insufficient evidence for the jury to find malice. The findings on justification and malice were set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Jury's findings on justification and malice set aside
  • Regent's appeal allowed