dbo:abstract
|
- Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" (or the creditors standing in its insolvent shoes) could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords. The decision was subject to much criticism, and was reviewed by the Supreme Court in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation). (en)
|
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
dbo:wikiPageID
| |
dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 24463 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
dbp:citations
|
- [2009] UKHL 39, [2009] 1 AC 1391 (en)
|
dbp:court
| |
dbp:dateDecided
| |
dbp:decisionBy
|
- Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (en)
- Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (en)
- Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (en)
|
dbp:dissenting
|
- Lord Mance (en)
- Lord Scott of Foscote (en)
|
dbp:fullName
|
- Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (en)
|
dbp:italicTitle
| |
dbp:judges
| |
dbp:keywords
|
- (en)
- attribution (en)
- fraud (en)
- illegality (en)
|
dbp:name
|
- Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens (en)
|
dbp:numberOfJudges
| |
dbp:priorActions
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
gold:hypernym
| |
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:comment
|
- Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" (or the creditors standing in its insolvent shoes) could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditor (en)
|
rdfs:label
|
- Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq) (en)
|
owl:sameAs
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |