Ex p James

Ex parte James (1803) 32 ER 385 is an insolvency and company law case, concerning conflicts of interest, and the absolute duty to avoid them.

A bankrupt's estate was purchased by a solicitor to the commission of the bankrupt. The solicitor, acting for the bankruptcy commission, purchased assets from the bankrupt's estate at an undervalue, creating a clear conflict between his fiduciary duties and personal financial interests. This raised fundamental questions about the integrity of insolvency proceedings and the enforceability of such transactions.

Lord Eldon LC stated the following in his judgment.

This doctrine as to purchases by trustees, assignees, and persons having a confidential character, stands much more upon general principle than upon the circumstances of any individual case. It rests upon this, that the purchase is not permitted in any case, however honest the circumstances, the general interests of justice requiring it to be destroyed in every instance; as no court is equal to the examination and ascertainment of the truth in much the greater number of cases.

Lord Eldon's rigorous application of the 'no-conflict' rule in this case became a cornerstone of fiduciary law, influencing later decisions like Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44. His reasoning reflected growing judicial intolerance for self-dealing, even in the absence of proven fraud – a principle now codified in modern insolvency statutes.^[1]

• Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] 1 All ER 378
• Holder v Holder [1968] Ch 353

• TE Chan, 'Revisiting Ex Parte James' [2003] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 557-582
• Copy of Judgment in the English Reports [1]