Site icon swarb.co.uk

Stone and Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens (A Firm); Comc 27 Jul 2007

References: [2007] EWHC 1826 (Comm), [2008] Bus LR 304, (2007) 157 NLJ 1154, [2008] PNLR 4, [2008] 1 BCLC 697
Links: Bailii
Coram: Langley J
The company claimed against its chartered accountants for negligence when acting as auditors. The sole directing mind of the company had used it as a vehicle for substantial frauds. The court was asked ‘whether and if so when can a claim by a company against its auditors infringe the maxim, still familiarly expressed in Latin, that ex turpi causa non oritur actio.’
Held: The company itself were primarily, and not just vicariously, responsible for the fraudulent conduct and that the Hampshire Land principle did not apply. However, ex turpi causa could not prevent a claim founded on fraud that would not have occurred had Moore Stephens properly complied with their ‘very duty’ as auditors of the company.
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 22-Oct-15 Ref: 259323

Exit mobile version