(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.’
Judges:
Chao Hick Tin JA, Tay Yong Kwang J, Yong Pung How CJ
Citations:
[2005] 4 SLR 214, [2005] SGCA 38
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Moore Stephens (A Firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) HL 30-Jul-2009
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 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Torts – Other
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.373980
