I have changed my mind. Having carefully considered the decision in A B & C v D & E [2024] NZSC 161, I am now of the view that the SC was correct. To have pushed doctrine forward as urged by the appellants, would not have been an incremental extension of existing principle as I suggested. What was proposed would have been inconsistent with fundamentals of fiduciary law.
I have changed my mind. Having carefully considered the decision in A B & C v D & E [2024] NZSC 161, I am now of the view that the SC was correct. To have pushed doctrine forward as urged by the appellants, would not have been an incremental extension of existing principle as I suggested. What was proposed would have been inconsistent with fundamentals of fiduciary law.
So these are a lightweight bunch of poseurs chosen for their woke credentials?
Maddening .
I thought the SC decision was disgraceful.
I read the judgment with increasing dismay. Lord Denning would have been angry dissenter.