FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45

Facts

  • FHR European Ventures LLP engaged Cedar Capital Partners LLC as its agent for the purchase of a hotel in Monte Carlo.
  • Cedar Capital received a €10 million commission from the vendor in connection with the transaction, which was not disclosed to FHR.
  • Upon discovery, FHR claimed that this payment constituted a bribe or secret commission owed to them under a constructive trust.
  • The High Court found Cedar Capital had breached its fiduciary duty but declined a constructive trust remedy, allowing only a personal claim for equitable compensation.
  • The Court of Appeal upheld that view, leading FHR to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent in breach of fiduciary duty is held on constructive trust for the principal, or only gives rise to a personal claim for equitable compensation.
  2. Whether existing conflicting authorities in English law on proprietary versus personal remedies should be resolved.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court unanimously allowed FHR's appeal.
  • Held that the €10 million commission received by Cedar Capital was held on constructive trust for FHR.
  • The Court expressly rejected the position that only a personal claim arises in such circumstances.
  • Overruled Lister & Co v Stubbs (1890) as inconsistent with the imposition of a constructive trust over bribes and secret commissions.
  • Endorsed the Privy Council's stance in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (1994) that bribes are held on constructive trust for principals.

Legal Principles

  • Fiduciary relationships require the utmost loyalty, good faith, and avoidance of conflicts of interest.
  • A constructive trust is imposed to prevent unjust enrichment where a fiduciary profits from a breach of duty.
  • A bribe or secret commission constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and is held on constructive trust for the principal.
  • Principals have a proprietary claim to bribes or secret commissions received by agents, not merely a personal claim.
  • The proprietary remedy offers greater protection—particularly in insolvency—than a personal remedy.
  • The imposition of a constructive trust serves a deterrent function, reinforcing fiduciary obligations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court resolved longstanding uncertainty in English law by holding that bribes or secret commissions taken by an agent in breach of fiduciary duty are held on constructive trust for the principal, granting proprietary remedies and strengthening enforcement of fiduciary obligations in commercial contexts.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal