header-logo header-logo

21 June 2024 / Rakesh Kapila
Issue: 8076 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Checks & balances in business disputes

Rakesh Kapila explains why & how expert accountants should check the reliability of evidence in disputes involving businesses
  • Offers advice on ensuring evidence is reliable and, where possible, corroborated.

One of the key aspects of the work undertaken by forensic accountants in relation to disputes involving businesses is the availability of evidence that is reliable. Expert accountants therefore need to ensure that any conclusions reached for the purposes of negotiation and court or other proceedings are supported by information that has been subject to sufficient scrutiny. The reliability of evidence is important irrespective of whether the expert is instructed on behalf of the claimant or the defendant.

This article covers aspects of some of the key ‘corroborative’ information sought by forensic accountants instructed to consider the workings of businesses. Such instructions may arise in various types of disputes, including loss of profits cases, family law cases where one or both parties are integral to a business, contractual disputes and personal injury cases involving the loss of earnings relating

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll