## Facts

- The case concerned a family-run company operating grocery stores which owned a commercial property, part of which was leased to a tenant.
- The tenant used a portion of adjacent land as a car park.
- One of the company's directors noticed a "for sale" sign on the adjacent land.
- Without informing the company or fellow directors, the director arranged for a separate company he controlled to purchase the adjacent land.
- No disclosure was made to the company’s board regarding the opportunity to acquire the property.
- The acquisition was later challenged in court, focusing on whether the director breached his fiduciary duty by not presenting the opportunity to the company, and questioning if the opportunity was within the company’s business interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the director’s acquisition of the adjacent property, without informing the company or its board, constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
2. Whether the corporate opportunity doctrine applied to these circumstances, making the property a matter the company was entitled to consider.
3. Whether the director’s silence and personal acquisition via a separate entity deprived the company of its right to pursue the opportunity.

## Decision

- The court held that the adjacent land was a corporate opportunity directly relevant to the company’s interests.
- By not communicating the opportunity and acquiring the property for himself, the director breached his fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest.
- The director's actions amounted to a violation of the corporate opportunity doctrine, as his duty required disclosure of opportunities falling within the company’s interests.
- The director was found liable to account to the company for profits made through the acquisition of the property.
- The ruling confirmed that using a separate controlled entity does not negate a director’s duty to the company.

## Legal Principles

- The corporate opportunity doctrine prevents directors from exploiting opportunities suitable for the company for their own benefit.
- Directors have a fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest and must disclose potentially worthwhile opportunities to the company.
- This duty of disclosure arises even if the company may ultimately decide not to pursue the opportunity.
- The doctrine applies where there is a connection between the opportunity and the company’s actual or potential business activities.
- Directors cannot circumvent their fiduciary obligations by using other companies or individuals to secure such opportunities.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Bhullar v Bhullar established that directors must not appropriate opportunities relevant to the company’s business for themselves and are strictly required to disclose such opportunities, reinforcing the high standard of fiduciary responsibility in corporate governance.


Bhullar v Bhullar [2003] EWCA Civ 424