header-logo header-logo

14 August 2008 / Alexandra Underwood
Issue: 7334 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The escape of the auditors

Can auditors be held liable for third party losses resulting from company fraud? Alexandra Underwood

In Moore Stephens v Stone & Rolls Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 644 the Court of Appeal considered the principle that a claim cannot be founded on an illegal act. The issue was whether the principle provided a defence to a claim brought by a company involved in a fraud, against a third party, in respect of losses suffered as a result of the fraud. Stone & Rolls sued its auditors in professional negligence for failing to detect and report a fraud orchestrated by the company's managing director. Moore Stephens applied to strike out the claim on the grounds that Stone & Rolls relied on its own fraud in bringing the claim.

Stone & Rolls was owned, controlled and managed by its managing director, Mr Stojevic. In a separate action brought by the victim of the fraud, the company and its managing director were found liable for a fraud of USD 94.5m committed by Stojevic using Stone & Rolls

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

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
back-to-top-scroll