| Abstract: | Boardman v Phipps is a leading authority on the no-conflictrule. The House of Lords maintained the strict rule that historicallyequity has imposed on a fiduciary. This article explores howthe dissenting judgment of Lord Upjohn in Boardman v Phippshas been preferred by the lower courts and why the courts haveadopted such a position. This has fuelled a more general debateas to whether the no-conflict rule should be harsh or more flexible.Recent cases including Bhullar v Bhullar are discussed to illustratethe present approach of the courts to the recurring issues surroundingpossible applications of the no-conflict rule. |
