law. In addition, it could not be shown that a conflict of interest existed with respect to NWP's dealings with Kia Ora: Although it was not a crucial point in the appeal, the High Court also held that "the actual decision in re White Star Line Ltd may be understood as turning on the fact that both parties to the transaction knew that the consideration offered and received was not worth the sum attributed to it." Opinion of Kirby J Kirby J agreed that the appeal should be allowed. However, he held that Breen did not exclude a fiduciary obligation: He proceeded to summarize principles relating the nature of fiduciary obligations: They are not confined to established relationships, or to exactly identical facts, as those that have given rise to them in the past. It is not sufficient, to impose fiduciary obligations on an alleged wrong-doer, simply to point to the vulnerability of the person claiming to have been wronged. The mere fact that a party may have remedies at law, whether in contract or tort, does not exclude the possibility that fiduciary obligations may also be imposed. The greatest difficulty facing those who assert the existence of fiduciary obligations, outside the classic per se relationships, arises from the fact that the law has not formulated any precise or comprehensive definition of the criteria adopted for imposing such obligations. The unifying principle of fiduciary obligations arises from the existence of a duty of loyalty that, reflecting "higher community standards or values", gives rise to a "legitimate expectation that the other party will act in the interests of the first party or at least in the joint interests of the parties and not solely self-interestedly". To reduce the uncertainties that arise from the elusive "essence" of the "fiduciary principle", it is reasonable for courts to have regard to features commonly found in cases where fiduciary obligations have been upheld. References Further reading (2002) 23(2) Adelaide Law Review 215 . High Court of Australia cases 2001 in Australian law 2001 in case law Corporate case law