NOTE 70.  ADD: Strother v 3464920 Canada Inc [2007] SCC 24 at [118] & [141]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 113 114 832) (No. 4) [2007] FCA 963 at [288]; South Australia v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co (1997) 24 A.C.S.R. 231, 266; Stevens v Premium Real Estate Ltd [2009] NZSC 15 at [23].

NOTE 72.  ADD: Brooker v Friend [2006] NSWCA 385 at [26].  For an example of the importance of defining the fiduciary's non-fiduciary duties, see the difference of opinion between the majority and the dissent in Strother v 3464920 Canada Inc [2007] SCC 24, which was focused on the content of the lawyer's contractual retainer.  Also, in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 113 114 832) (No. 4) [2007] FCA 963, an investment bank was held not to occupy a fiduciary position vis-a-vis its client as a result of a contractual exclusion of any such relationship: see, especially, at [324]-[335].

ADD AT END OF PARAGRAPH: Where the fiduciary's duty is owed to a company, courts are more prepared to look behind the corporate veil to identify the persons to whom, as a matter of practical and common-sense reality, the fiduciary's duties are owed: Ratiu v Conway [2005] EWCA Civ 1302 at [78]-[80], [186] & [188].