View more on these topics

Peter Hamilton: Financial consequences of evading the duty of trust


A recent decision of the Court of Appeal illustrates only too clearly that agents owe their principals a fiduciary duty of trust, confidence and single-minded loyalty. This means not acting in any way that does, or could, involve a conflict of interest between the interests of the client and those of the agent, unless the agent has the client’s full and informed consent.

One of the serious conflicts of interest that exists in the financial services industry relates to commissions and other inducements. If there is a breach of that fiduciary duty, the agent is liable to account to the principal for the profit they made as a result.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was on 11 March in the case of McWilliam and McWilliam v Norton Finance (UK) Ltd. The brief facts were Mr and Mrs McWilliam (the clients) were looking for a loan of about £25,000 to refinance credit card loans and to fund the building of a conservatory for their house. They approached Norton Finance, a firm of credit brokers, which arranged a loan of £25,500 together with PPI cover costing £3,745.

The clients knew they would pay £750 to Norton as a “broker fee” and a completion fee of £500. They did not know (because they were not told) Norton would receive both a commission of £2,675 from the providers of the finance for the introduction and £1,685.25 from the PPI insurers: £4,360.25 in total. Thus more than 18 per cent of the amount borrowed was made up of fees or commission.

Once the clients discovered the full extent of the commission received by Norton, they sought to recover from it the amounts to which they had not agreed. The trial judge found for Norton and so the clients appealed.

The Court of Appeal had no difficulty in deciding Norton was the agent of the clients for the purpose of arranging the required finance and that Norton owed the clients a fiduciary duty not to “have placed itself in a position where its duty and its interest conflict, nor profit out of the trust reposed in it to get the best possible deal, nor act for its own benefit without the [clients’] informed consent”.

Although the clients may have guessed Norton was to receive commission for arranging the loan and the PPI cover, the totals were so high that, unless the clients knew the full facts and amounts, they could not be taken to have consented. It followed that the clients obtained judgment in the Court of Appeal for the undisclosed commissions of £4,360.25 and interest. This sum was the secret profit in law made from the conflict and the failure to disclose it.

In the course of his judgment, Lord Justice Tomlinson adopted the much-quoted words of Lord Justice Millett in the earlier case of Bristol & West Building Society v Mother (decided in 1997), which are worth repeating:

“A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations. They are the defining characteristics of a fiduciary. …[He] is not subject to fiduciary obligations because he is a fiduciary; it is because he is subject to them that he is a fiduciary.”

Generally speaking, when a financial adviser or anyone in a similar position (such as a credit broker) acts for a client by arranging a deal for them or acts in respect of a transaction on behalf of them, the financial adviser will be the client’s agent. That relationship of the agent to his principal is an example of a fiduciary relationship. It follows that all such advisers need to take particular care they make full and clear disclosure to their clients of all amounts they will accrue as a result of the transaction undertaken by them on behalf of the client. To get the client’s informed consent, the adviser needs to explain exactly what he proposes to do, what the financial consequences will be and how that will conflict with the interests of the client. Then, of course, the client must agree.

Peter Hamilton is a barrister specialising in financial services at 4 Pump Court and co-founder of 


Bellpenny picks up £157m in Croydon IFA acquisition

National wealth manager Bellpenny has acquired Croydon advisory business Trustee Asset Management for an undisclosed fee. The deal boosts Bellpenny’s funds under management by £157m and takes the consolidator’s number of acquisitions to 30 since it launched. TAM shareholders and advisers Bob Bradley and Nick Bird will join Bellpenny following the completion of the deal. […]


Tom Baigrie: Industry must generate positive protection headlines

With claims paid rates for protection now so high, could the matter become a source of much needed positive press? Historically, protection claims have only really made headlines through Watchdog, Panorama and the like exposing cases where they have seemingly been unfairly declined. That history has dripped into the collective consumer consciousness as a real […]


Osborne reveals new MPC member

Chancellor George Osborne has announced senior economist at Brevan Howard Asset Management Gertjan Vlieghe has been appointed to the Monetary Policy Committee. Vlieghe will replace David Miles as external MPC member, with Miles standing down from the nine-strong committee at the end of August. Osborne says: “Monetary policy plays a critical role in our long-term […]

Christine Lagarde 2013 700x450.jpg

IMF warns of Eurozone stagnation

The International Monetary Fund has warned the risk of stagnation remains in the eurozone area, with the medium-term outlook for growth being “subdued”. In a consultation on the euro area, the IMF says “high unemployment, especially among the youth; large corporate debt; and, rising non-performing loans in the banking system” are all potential risks for […]

Budget summary – March 2016

This week’s Budget looked as if it would be a difficult one for the Chancellor, with disappointing economic numbers and the need to avoid ruffling feathers ahead of June’s in/out referendum. Nevertheless, Mr Osborne did spring a few surprises, including some tax reductions. So how does this budget affect you? If you are – or […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. They went to the Court of Appeal over £4k?

    • Barry Thompson 28th July 2015 at 4:12 pm

      If “The Court of Appeal had no difficulty in deciding Norton was the agent of the clients for the purpose of arranging the required finance and that Norton owed the clients a fiduciary duty” why couldn’t the judge at the original trial come to the same (not too difficult) decision.

  2. Barry has beaten me to it with his comment. In addition, why didnt the FOS handle this case? And is the different judges decision a case in point for why FOS is flawed as there is no appeal of the FOS, so if the FOS make the mistake the first judge did, advisers are stuffed as even if the FOS make the wrong decision for the consumer, they can still go to court, the adviser can’t. The FOS system does not give equality of arms to advisers and consumers even if it does rebalance inequality of arms with providers.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm