References: [1928] AC 1
Ratio:the court was asked whether the knowledge of the directors of the latter company should be attributed to it, with the effect that the latter company could and should be treated as estopped from denying that it had consented to a particular arrangement with a third party company. However, the arrangement was one that was against the company’s interests and for the benefit of the third party company which the directors also controlled and which was in financial difficulties.
Held: The law does not make the unreal assumption that agents will reveal to their principals the fraud which they are comitting on them.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd -v- Item Software (UK) Ltd CA ([2004] EWCA Civ 1244, Times 21-Oct-04, Bailii, [2004] BCC 994, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 17, [2005] ICR 450, [2005] 2 BCLC 91, [2004] IRLR 928)
The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
Held: A company . . - Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another -v- Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC (Bailii, [2015] UKSC 23, [2015] WLR(D) 182, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2013/0206, SC Summary, SC, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61, [2015] 1 BCLC 443, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 281, [2015] BVC 20, [2015] 2 WLR 1168, [2015] BCC 343, [2015] 2 All ER 1083)
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 25-Jun-16
Ref: 215866