Appeal Court orders confidentiality retrial

A dispute relating to the duty of confidentiality owed by surveyors to their clients is set for a High Court retrial after a decision of the Court of Appeal. In a High Court ruling in July 1997 Chadwick J held that property development company Morbaine Ltd should transfer its interest in a Stockport site to rival developers Satnam Investments Ltd, in a case involving allegations of breach of confidentiality by surveyors. That decision has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal and the action brought against Morbaine by Satnam dismissed. But the Appeal Court ruled that there should be a retrial of a dispute between Satnam and Manchester-based chartered surveyors, Dunlop Heywood and Widness in respect of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty been owed to Satnam. The action centred on acquisition by Morbaine of land in Brewery Street, Stockport, Greater Manchester. The land formed part of a development site adjacent to Tiviot Way and had been subject of an option to purchase by Satnam, to whom it was important because it formed part of a larger surrounding area owned by them and for which they planned future development. Satnam brought the High Court proceedings alleging that Morbaine had obtained the Brewery Street site after being given confidential information about it by Dunlop Heywood. Dunlop had previously been instructed by Satnam with a view to acquiring the entire Tiviot Way site, obtaining planning permission and marketing it for future retail development. Satnam alleged that Dunlop were in breach of fiduciary duty by passing on confidential information, and that Morbaine had known of the breach. In their defence both Dunlop and Morbaine alleged that the information was disclosed during a short period in 1995 when joint administrative receivers had been appointed over Satnams affairs. In the High Court Chadwick J ruled that there was no reason for assuming that the appointment of a receiver released fiduciary agents from their obligations. However, allowing Morbaines appeal and dismissing the action against them, the Court of Appeal said that there was “no basis on which equitable relief could be granted” against Morbaine. But it ruled that there should be a retrial of the dispute between Satnam and Dunlop. Satnam Investments Ltd v Dunlop Heywood Ltd and others. Court of Appeal (Nourse, Schiemann and Brooke LJJ), December 21 1998 Philip Vallance QC and Angus McCullough (instructed by Park Nelson) appeared for the appellants Dunlop Heywood; Michael Kent QC, Catherine Newman QC and Andrew OConnor (instructed by Bullivant Jones & Co, of Liverpool) appeared for the appellant Morbaine; Mark Hapgood QC and Michael Lazarus (instructed by Dibb Lupton Alsop) appeared for the respondents Satnam.