Fiduciary relationship
Equity

The classic example of a relationship where a fiduciary relationship will exist is a trustee’s relationship to his or her beneficiary. The established categories of relationship are presumed (and may be rebutted) include relationships between agents and principals; solicitors and their clients; doctor’s obligations their patients; company directors’ and shadow directors’ relationships with their company; and the employer, employee relationship. Promoters owe fiduciary duties to the companies they promote; partners owe such duties to their partners; receivers to the persons on whose behalf they act; and guardians to their wards. It is immaterial that a fiduciary acts gratuitously.

Such relationships may exist where the relationship falls outside the established presumed categories. The imposition of the duty into any particular relationship relies upon the facts of the case. The judiciary has consistently avoided defining the nature these relationships, as to do so would limit the application of the concept and increase the danger of creating an inflexible doctrine that does not serve the purposes of equity. At very least, one would expect that a high level of trust and confidence by one person in another and reliance upon them to promote and maintain their best interests in their activities. It must be reasonable for the principal to have that expectation.  The requirement for loyalty in such relationships is geared to prevent the fiduciary acting in their own interests and prevent the fiduciary from making a personal profit from the relationship.

There is no reason why such duties cannot exist in commercial contracts and transactions; such circumstances are rare because commercial enterprises do not regularly place their own interests to secondary to others. It is noteworthy that businesses in joint venturers may act as agents for one another, and leave scope of the characteristics of the relationship to arise.

It has been held, in peculiar and particular circumstances that a bank manager is in a fiduciary relationship with his customer; a manager who promotes a musician; and joint venturers to one another. Characterising these relationships as fiduciary in nature in every case however would be quite wrong. Indeed, even in the established categories, a court of equity will merely presume that the special relationship exists.