UK: Professional Liabilities In Fraud Claims

Last Updated: 14 October 2006
Article by Simon Congdon

Originally published in Fraud Intelligence published by Informa UK

Victims of fraud have extensive legal rights to help them recover assets taken by the fraudster, and to sue him for damages. But sometimes, these are not enough. The proceeds of fraud are as often dissipated as saved, leaving the victim with insufficient remedy. In these circumstances, he may look for a "deep pocket", who has been involved in the fraudulent transaction in such a way as to expose himself to liability.

To take a standard example: a fraudster may procure a corporate vehicle to enter into a transaction with the victim, so that assets are transferred from the victim to the vehicle, and then in turn to the fraudster. The transaction might be a loan, or a sale of corporate or physical assets. In each case, both vehicle and victim may well have employed a raft of professional advisers such as financiers, auditors, lawyers or valuers.

These may be attractive (sometimes too attractive) targets for recovery. The victim may be able to recover from his own advisers or (whether directly or indirectly) from those of the vehicle. The article focuses primarily on the latter. Advisers may be liable either as participants in the fraud, if they have involved themselves as conspirators, joint tortfeasors or accessories to breach of trust. Otherwise, though not themselves participants in the fraud, they may have breached obligations as a result of which they are liable for the losses suffered. This article is concerned with this second category of liability.

Types of claim

The professional will usually have a contract with either the victim or the vehicle (occasionally both). The contract will specify his obligations, but they almost invariably involve the duty to exercise the skill and care reasonably to be expected of a professional man in his position. He will also owe a like duty of care, for breach of which he may be liable in tort for negligence. That duty of care may extend to persons not parties to the contract. The professional will be liable if he breaches the contractual duty or duty of care, and that breach causes loss. The key to whether loss has been suffered is often whether the claimant has relied upon the professional's advice. These are the most common types of claims, and some specific examples are discussed below. There are, however, other possible duties. The assets filched may, for instance, be physical assets in the possession of a shipowner or warehouseman, who may owe duties as a bailee. Or they may be dematerialised securities held by a global custodian, giving rise to trust obligations.


The auditors of the vehicle are a common target. Often, the victim of a fraud wishes to sue them direct, despite the absence of any contractual relationship. The first question is whether they owe him any direct duty of care.

The general rule is that the auditor only owes a duty to the company he audits. The House of Lords so held in Caparo v. Dickman, dismissing a shareholder's claim to recover losses caused by purchasing more shares on the strength of the audited accounts. The court was reluctant as a matter of policy to hold the defendant liable to an unlimited class of people for an unlimited amount. It held, however, that there may be exceptional cases where the loss is foreseeable, there is sufficient proximity between the auditor and the victim and it is just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

The courts have sometimes been prepared to impose duties on this basis. One such case is where specific representations are made to potential investors. Thus, in Morgan Crucible v. Hill Samuel, financial statements were issued for the defence of a contested takeover bid. It was held that a person who purchased shares in reliance upon them could sue. Courts have also imposed duties of care where there are groups of companies. In Barings v. Coopers & Lybrand, it was held that the auditor of a subsidiary might owe a duty to the parent company. In BCCI v. Pricewaterhouse, it was held that the auditor of one group company might owe a duty to another where there was sufficient independence between the audits.

More usually, it is the company which pursues its own auditors, either because it is itself the victim, or because a third party victim has placed it into an insolvency regime to utilise its claims.

An auditor owes its client duties in contract and tort. The starting point for determining them is the contract with the client, and the relevant statutes and regulations. The courts usually require expert evidence to establish the standards to be met. The court will also consider auditing and accounting standards issued by the accountants' professional bodies and the relevant auditor's own internal manual.

The duties of an auditor in respect of fraud detection have expanded over recent years. Famously, the original rule was that the accountant was a watchdog not a bloodhound: that he was only responsible for detecting fraud when his suspicion was excited, but when it was, he was obliged to probe it to the bottom. The modern approach is more onerous. The Statement of Auditing Standards No. 110.1 issued by the Auditing Practices Board set out a detailed approach as to how an auditor should assess the risk of fraud and error occurring, and design audit procedures to take account of that risk. Subsequent international frauds such as Enron and Worldcom, have generated still further activity, notably the International Standard on Auditing No. 240, which now governs the position.

In principle, the auditor is liable for reasonably foreseeable losses flowing from his breach. In Sasea Finance Limited v. KPMG, the Court of Appeal held that an auditor's duty was to report the fraud of a senior employee to the company's management as soon as he discovered or should have discovered it, rather than to wait until the end of the audit.


Solicitors are another common target. This was particularly so following the property crash in the late 1980s, when a number of firms which had been acting jointly for purchaser and lender were sued when the purchaser defaulted on his loan, and the lender's security was insufficient to repay it.

In general a solicitor does not owe duties to his opposite party. As in the case of auditors, there may be exceptional circumstances where a court considers the loss is foreseeable, that there is sufficient proximity between the solicitor and the third party, and the imposition of the duty of care is just and reasonable.

A particular issue arises when a solicitor is acting both for purchaser and lender. Once again, the starting point in determining the solicitor's duties is the retainer. Additionally, it was held in Mortgage Express v. Bowerman that if in the course of his duties the solicitor comes across non-confidential information which is clearly of potential significance to the lender, he should pass it on.


The victim of a fraud often expects to make full recovery in respect of his losses. The law gives remedies which support that expectation where the defendant has been dishonest. Claims against professionals who have merely been negligent are, however, different. The courts have imposed a number of limiting factors on recovery. These are often policy-based, and result in large claims often leading to lower recoveries.

The first concerns the extent of the duty of care undertaken. In South Australia Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague Limited, a valuer negligently over-valued a commercial property, on the strength of which the bank lent money. The market collapsed, the borrower defaulted, and the lender sought to recoup his losses from the valuer. The House of Lords focused on the duty which the valuer was under, holding that this was to provide information upon which the lender would determine how to act. Accordingly, the valuer was only responsible for the consequences of the information being wrong. That was the loss in value of security, and not that caused by market collapse, despite the fact that the lender argued that it would not have entered into the transaction at all had it known the property's true value.

Second, there are a number of partial defences to this type of claim which are unavailable to a defendant in fraud. One is contributory negligence: where the victim is also at fault, the court may assess his degree of blame and reduce the damages accordingly. Similarly, the professional is not liable for damages which are too remote, that is, damages not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties for the purposes of contract, or not reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of tort. The victim also has to prove that the breach caused the loss, which he may not be able to do.

Third, one particular developing area is that of the "loss of a chance". In Allied Maples v. Simmons & Simmons, the claimant alleged that its solicitors had failed to negotiate for a particular contractual clause. If the other party had agreed it, the claimant would have avoided substantial losses. The Court of Appeal distinguished this type of case from one where the claimant seeks to prove that certain events have occurred, or what he would have done if properly advised. In those cases, he must prove his case on the balance of probabilities. This case turned upon the hypothetical action of a third party in conferring a benefit on the claimant, or avoiding a loss to him. In such case, the court had to decide whether there was a real and substantial chance of the third party so acting; as opposed to a merely speculative one. If there was, then what the claimant had lost was that chance, and the court had to value it by determining the percentage chance, and awarding the claimant that percentage of his damages. Whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage depends. A claimant can still make a substantial recovery even on less than a 50% chance. Conversely, if he establishes that it was more likely than not that the third party would act favourably, he still only recovers the relevant percentage. This principle has wide potential application where the claimant alleges he would, if properly advised, have taken steps to remedy the situation the effectiveness of which depends upon the hypothetical actions of third parties. This was essentially the nature of the case put forward unsuccessfully in the Equitable Life case, although that was not itself a fraud case.

Fourth, another control is circuity of action. In Barings v. Coopers & Lybrand, a company officer had signed a representation letter to the defendant auditors, who alleged that he knew was false. Consequently, they argued that they were entitled to a complete indemnity from the company for any liability for negligence. The court rejected the allegation of fraud, but otherwise said the auditor's argument was correct. Clearly, that argument could give rise to a defence to actions against auditors in many fraud cases. Its effect is mitigated to the extent that the court contrasted the case where the auditor's enquiry is specifically about fraud. Nevertheless, this issue will no doubt be debated for some time.

Characteristics of litigation against professionals

There are many advantages in seeking to pursue professionals to recoup losses arising out of fraud. The defendants are often large entities in their own right, and usually have the benefit of substantial indemnity insurance cover. They are therefore worth powder and shot. Claimants also often think that professionals are the more likely to settle in order to avoid reputation or regulatory risk.

Although these are real advantages, they can be double-edged. They invariably mean that the litigation is well resourced and heavily fought, often being insurer led. Where insurers are involved, they may be much less concerned about the reputation of their insured, and much more interested in the quantum of the claim. However much the professional is open to criticism, the insurer will want to know why this has led to actual loss before paying a claim.

This issue of quantum can become very significant. It is a standard strategy in fraud litigation to identify relatively easy assets or claims first, and then to pursue more difficult ones. Claims against professionals are often in the nature of "top-up" claims after all easier recoveries have been made. The insurer will not be slow to argue that before the professional can be liable, the claimant has to show that the value of his claim exceeds the net value of recoveries made to date. When full account is taken of matters such as contributory negligence, remoteness, causation difficulties and loss of a chance, this may be difficult, even where there is no real defence on liability.


Claims against professionals can be a useful means for recouping losses arising from fraud. As in all litigation, however, the claimant should take careful stock of his position before commencing proceedings, satisfying himself that he is sufficiently confident of establishing liability in a sum sufficiently large to give a net recovery. It is not necessarily easy to establish that a professional has been liable, and even where he has, there are a number of defences relating to the quantum of the claim which are unavailable to a defendant who has actually participated in fraud. There has been a temptation to make very large claims against professionals in the hope that they will settle. Litigation is always risky and some recent well-published victories for defendants suggest that the attitudes of some "deep pockets" have been hardening.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.