The company had been required to make a return for revenue purposes (purchase tax) and the statute made it an offence to make a false return with intent to deceive. The company was charged with such, but responded that the action was of employees .
Held: The mens rea of the servant authorised to discharge the duty to make the return should be attributed to the company. The Court focussed on the question whether the officers were acting within the scope of their authority and concluded that they were, notwithstanding that the purpose of the dishonest purchase tax returns was to conceal the defendant’s own theft from the company.
Viscount Caldecott LCJ described the officers as important officials of the company
Humphreys J said that it was difficult to imagine two persons whose acts would ‘more effectively bind the company’ and who could be said to be more obviously agents of the company
Judges:
Humphreys J, Viscount Caldecott LCJ
Citations:
[1944] 2 All ER 515
Cited by:
Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565996
