header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 June 2021
Issue: 7935 / Categories: Features , Employment , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Held to account home & away

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
50421
Paul Dowling reports on a recent case of parent company liability & the treatment of overseas workers
  • Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Ors: an important development in the law applicable to firms offering professional services overseas.

In December 2020 the global professional services firm, EY, withdrew its appeal in a case brought against various London-based EY entities by whistleblower and former EY partner, Amjad Rihan (Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 901 (QB), [2020] All ER (D) 105 (Apr)).

The case concerned allegations that EY had covered up the adverse findings of a sustainability audit into the Dubai Gold trade, including evidence of money laundering and conflict minerals, causing the partner in charge of the audit, Mr Rihan, to resign. After a trial, Mr Justice Kerr ruled in April 2020 in favour of Mr Rihan and awarded him substantial compensation. In doing so the court found that senior EY global executives had consistently acted in breach of the relevant professional

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll