ADD NEW PARAGRAPH: 8.Removal A fiduciary who acts in a situation involving actual or potential conflict between duties owed to more than one client, may be prevented, by way of injunction, from continuing to act: Marks & Spencer plc v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer [2004] EWHC 1337 (Ch); [2004] 1 W.L.R. 2331. The conflict must be more than a mere theoretical possibility; there must be a reasonable apprehension of a potential conflict before an injunction will issue: Marks & Spencer plc v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer [2004] EWHC 1337 (Ch); [2004] 1 W.L.R. 2331 at [15]; Re Baron Investments (Holdings) Ltd (in liq) [2000] 1 B.C.L.C. 272 at 282-284. The availability of such an injunction is not limited to cases where the conflict arises in respect of a single matter involving the two (or more) clients to whom inconsistent duties are owed, but where this is not the case an injunction is not available unless there is a reasonable relationship between the two matters: Marks & Spencer plc v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer [2004] EWHC 1337 (Ch); [2004] 1 W.L.R. 2331 at [16].  Similarly, directors of companies who have acted in breach of the fiduciary duties which they owe to their company can be removed: see, e.g., Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Paulin [2005] EWHC 888 (ChD).