Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mike O'Brien (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fraud Bill [HL].


Fraud Bill [Lords]

I have looked through my notes for the exact quote from the Law Commission about clause 4, which I shall read out as the hon. Gentleman has expressed concern about the issue. It states that the ““necessary relationship”” of a position of trust"““will be present between trustee and beneficiary, director and company, professional person and client, agent and principal, employee and employer, or between partners. It may arise otherwise, for example within a family, or in the context of voluntary work, or in any context where the parties are not at arm’s length. In nearly all cases where it arises, it will be recognised by the civil law as importing fiduciary duties, and any relationship that is so recognised will suffice””." But—and this is important—it states:"““We see no reason, however, why the existence of such duties should be essential.””" In other words, the Law Commission has set out the type of relationships in which a position of trust might arise.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
447 c558 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Contracts Abuse Crime Conspiracy Criminal law Corruption Common law Credit cards Fraud Jurisdiction International cooperation Internet Organised crime Prosecutions Misrepresentation Victims Right of silence Sunset clauses
Legislation
Fraud Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk