"The court seems to have concluded that no distinction could be made between any type of gain made by a fiduciary in breach of their duties.Accordingly, no distinction should be made between cynical and honest fiduciary breaches."

Critically analyse this statement. Does it reflect English law's approach to fiduciary liability? Is this approach justified? Why or why not?

What is the question asking us to do? and what relevant points would there be to make?

Thank you