ABSTRACT
This article is a critique of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd. It argues that the litigation in the case may have been undertaken on an overly expansive view of what constitutes a secret commission. It also questions whether single-minded loyalty is a sine qua non of the fiduciary relationship and argues that in the Johnson appeal there was such a relationship. It also queries whether the Court was correct to conclude that only fiduciary relationships attract the law of secret commissions. Non-fiduciary employment relationships ought also to be governed by that law.
€ (Westlaw)
Peter Watts KC, ‘Secret commissions and agents’ remuneration – a critique of Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd at common law and equity’ [2025] Journal of Business Law (8) 607-618.
Leave a Reply