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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll