It could be said that a fiduciary relationship is found where one party reasonably places his trust and reliance in another party to act in a loyal manner conducive to his best interests. However, useful though that definition could prove, Jill Martin may be being more realistic where she says that 'it may sometimes appear that the defendant may classified as a fiduciary, or not, in order to achieve the desired result.' As such the judiciary's approach to the fiduciary relationship might be best understood as an example of a purposive approach to the law where they have attempted to give effect to the spirit of the law as opposed to any strict definition.
Under the rule in Keech v Sandford it is assumed that a fiduciary acts voluntarily and cannot charge for their time and trouble , but the law has long recognised that some fiduciary relationships require remuneration of some sort and it would be nave to suppose otherwise. In Robinson v Pett it was held that if a fiduciary could show a specific entitlement to remuneration they would receive it and similarly a fiduciary will receive any out of pocket expenses incurred doing business in their fiduciary capacity . If in a trust situation the beneficiaries are all sui juris and there is no possibility of undue influence they may agree to the trustee being paid. ...Show more