References: [2005] 4 SLR 214, [2005] SGCA 38
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Chao Hick Tin JA, Tay Yong Kwang J, Yong Pung How CJ
(Supreme Court of Singapore – Court of Appeal) A taxpayer sought to recover from his accountant an administrative penalty under a statutory provision dealing with the innocent submission of an incorrect tax return.
Held: In determining whether to impose a duty of care in cases of pure economic loss, the courts have ‘consistently adopted a restrictive approach.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Moore Stephens (A Firm) -v- Stone Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) HL (Bailii, [2009] UKHL 39, Times, [2009] 1 AC 1391, [2009] Bus LR 1356, [2009] PNLR 36, [2009] 3 WLR 455)
The appellants had audited the books of the respondent company, but had failed to identify substantial frauds by an employee of the respondent. The auditors appealed a finding of professional negligence, relying on the maxim ex turpi causa non . . - Cited – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another -v- Apotex Inc and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 55, [2015] 1 AC 430, [2014] WLR(D) 452, [2014] BUS LR 1217, [2015] 1 AC 430, [2014] 3 WLR 1257, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0158, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 22-Oct-15 Ref: 373980