LCRO 140/2016 and 153/2016 BF v ZL (21 February 2019) [pdf, 230 KB]
...does not have any relevance to the extent of the instruction given to Mr [ZL]. … Further it was not sought by SC. Had it been, Mr [ZL] understands it would have been available. • The SC accordingly erred in finding that Mr [ZL] had a duty to protect [CAB] on the transaction. • … no more was required of Mr [ZL] than took place. • … there was a concurrence, not conflict, of interest in his giving effect to what the parties had agreed. • No sensible articulation of what...