——United Dominions Corporation Ltd Brian Pty Ltd（1985）HCA 49；157 CLR 1
This is an appeal which is against the decision upholding the previous appeal. While the legal issue is that whether UDC who is the appellant in this case had fiduciary relationship with Brian who is the first respondent and whether UDC acted in the breach of its fiduciary duty to Brian.
Actually, the fact of the case is that UDC, SPL and others got involved into two arranged development of land which turned into one shopping center with contribution from all participants. Whereas，SPL possessing 90% of the finance from UDC, executed three mortgages in support of UDC to secure the venture. According to the definition of joint venture, before SPL gave the mortgage to UDC, the relationship between UDC, SPL and Brian existed. From the case analysis, it is clear for us to draw that SPL acted on behalf of Brian and others in executing the mortgage and stood in a fiduciary duty.（p4）The relationship between the participants in the shopping center ventures was a fiduciary one at least from the time when the formal agreement was executed. With this proposed joint venture agreement, the profits should be shared by the participants. However, without the knowledge of Brian, these mortgages contained the "collateralisation clause" which made Brian got neither the repayment which was contributed to the project or the payment from the share of the profits. In addition, the clause supported UDC to get entitled to retain all of the profits. There is no doubt that UDC was breach of the fiduciary obligation.（p5）Hence, UDC's appeal to this Court failed. To be sure，a joint venture may be analysed as a partnership even though the parties called a joint venture that is why High Court analyzed these facts as a relationship dispute.
This case referred to Birtchnell v. Equity Trustee, Executors, Agency. Co. Ltd (1929) HCA.24; (1929) 42 CLR 384 (p407-409) from which interpret the joint venture will...