UK: When Can A Company Sue Its Auditors For Failure To Uncover Fraud - The Final Word?

Last Updated: 3 August 2009
Article by Julian Randall, Catherine Manson and Tim Strong

The long awaited judgment in Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens was handed down by the House of Lords yesterday.

In opinions running to some 130 pages, the House of Lords has upheld the Court of Appeal's decision by a 3-2 majority. Several of their Lordships remark on the novelty of Moore Stephens' argument in this jurisdiction and the complexities of deciding it. They all reached their decisions by different routes. Comments by both the majority and the minority on each other's conclusions and reasoning suggest a long and possibly vigorous debate between them. It is questionable that the legal position has been greatly clarified.

The facts

Stone & Rolls is a company in liquidation. At all material times until its liquidation, the company was controlled and indirectly beneficially owned by one Zvonko Stojevic. Mr Stojevic used the company as a vehicle for letter of credit fraud. The company would present false documents purportedly evidencing grain trades in order to draw down on letters of credit issued in its favour. The sums extracted from various banks were applied elsewhere for the benefit of Mr Stojevic and others. When the music stopped, one of the banks sued both the company and Mr Stojevic in deceit and was awarded substantial damages against both. The company could not pay and consequently went into liquidation. The liquidators, in the name of the company, then brought a claim against Moore Stephens, the company's auditors, alleging: first, that they were negligent in failing to spot the fraud; and, secondly, that had they spotted it the company would not have been exposed to liabilities arising from the fraud. The company sought just under US$174m.

Moore Stephens (which in any event denied breach of duty) applied to strike out the claim on the basis that the loss the company was claiming arose directly from its own fraudulent activities.

The issue

There is a tension between the obvious public interests that auditors should detect and report fraud and the unfair burden this can place on auditors (who are, after all, professionals and not insurers of the companies they audit). Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman, 20 years ago, sought to relieve some of the burden on auditors by setting down that, while the public at large might well rely on audited accounts, the purpose (and thus the scope of the auditor's duty) extended only to the reporting to the company itself. Auditors' duties are therefore generally owed to the company alone and only the company can sue for their breach. This decision insulated auditors in particular from claims by persons who had bought shares in the company relying on the audited accounts.

Caparo caused few practical problems in relation to fraud. A fraud will always cause the company harm one way or another. Either the fraud is against the company or it will be against a third party who will generally have a right to sue the company for its losses. So, even after Caparo, the company, perhaps in liquidation, could sue for the loss caused to the company by the fraud (quite possibly in order to hand over the damages to any defrauded third parties).

What is to be done, however, if the company itself is dishonest? It is well established ("the illegality principle") that a court will not assist a claimant to recover compensation for the consequences of his own illegal conduct.

The majority in the House of Lords felt that it would be artificial to pretend that Stone & Rolls was not in reality dishonest and it would be inappropriate to create a special exception to normal legal principles just to find auditors liable in these sorts of circumstance. The minority clearly felt strongly that policy dictated a different result and that result could be accommodated within general principle.

As Lord Mance put it: "The world has sufficient experience of Ponzi schemes operated by individuals owning "one man" companies for it to be questionable policy to relieve from all responsibility auditors failing to check and report on such companies' activities. The speeches of my noble and learned friends in the majority have that effect."

The decisions below

At first instance, Langley J declined to strike out the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Moore Stephens' appeal. The Court of Appeal found that Mr Stojevic's conduct and knowledge were attributable to the company, such that the company was the perpetrator of the fraud (not the victim) and, therefore, the claim was barred by the illegality principle.

As stated, the House of Lords was split.

The majority (Lords Phillips, Walker and Brown) has held that, in the case of a "oneman" company where the directing mind and will of the company is also its owner, its fraudulent conduct is to be treated as the company's conduct and the illegality principle will defeat the company's claim against its auditors for failure to detect the fraud.

Lord Phillips concluded that the illegality principle provides a defence because all those whose interests were to be protected by the auditors' duty - in this case Mr Stojevic, the sole will, mind and beneficial owner of the company - were party to the illegal conduct. He also suggested that there is no duty owed to the company to report fraud externally if there is no-one to whom fraud can effectively be reported internally; this is a public duty and its breach cannot provide the crook with a remedy in damages.

The fact the company had gone into liquidation (and its creditors would therefore benefit from any recovery) could not provide the company with remedies it would not have if it were solvent.

The minority (Lords Scott and Mance) view was that Mr Stojevic was acting outside the scope of his authority as a shadow director and the company was properly categorised as a victim of the fraud.

Lord Mance appears to accept that where a company, owned and controlled by wrongdoers, is solvent at the audit date, "there is nothing to report, no-one to complain and no loss." However, where a company is insolvent, he considers that the auditors' duty extends, like directors', beyond the protection of the interests of shareholders because the auditors ought to have detected the company was insolvent as a result of the fraud.

In Lord Mance's closely reasoned judgment, he maintained that this approach was consistent with Caparo although it appears to involve assessing the auditors' duty by reference to who, at any one time, is the dominant interest behind a company and thus to cut across conventional concepts of separate corporate personality. In the view of the majority, if a company is dishonest as a matter of fact it should not be able to sue. The fact that damages might or might not go to the creditors cannot determine the company's legal rights.

It is difficult to draw very clear conclusions from such a disparate set of judgments, but some things are clear.

1 The principle that no claimant can rely on his own dishonesty in order to bring a claim applies to tort claims.

2 A company may be dishonest even though it has no independent will of its own.

3 The claimant argued throughout this litigation that the illegality defence does not apply where the matter in question (here detecting fraud) was the "very thing" the auditors were obliged to do. None of their Lordships considered this principle to be relevant.

4 None of their Lordships challenged the restrictions set down in Caparo. There was no appetite for extending any direct duty from the auditors to third parties who had been deceived by the fraudulent company.

By majority:

5 That where there is no innocent constituency within the company to whom the auditor can report, the company effectively becomes its dishonest controller and can be in no better position to sue its adviser than a dishonest natural person would be.

A number of issues are not resolved.

1 Much time was spent before the House examining the rules of attribution; that is when and how to fix a company with the knowledge of its dishonest agents. The majority largely short circuited this debate by holding, on the extreme facts of this case, detailed analysis was not needed.

2 This leaves open the question as to where one draws the line. When is a controller so dominant that the company becomes its alter ego. How many shares need to be held by an innocent person in order for the company not to be dishonest. The House of Lords rejected any wider principle that where the directing mind and will of a company perpetrated fraud that company's claim should be barred by reason of its own illegality. Rather, the majority limited the effect to "one-man" companies. The judgment has left open exactly what that means. Both Lords Phillips and Walker were willing to contemplate the illegality principle applying where there is some innocent constituency in the company. For example, Lord Walker suggested the expression should cover cases where there is one single dominant director and shareholder even if there are other directors or shareholders who are subservient to the dominant personality (but who are recklessly indifferent) and where there are two or more individual directors and shareholders acting closely in concert. While it is clear that the majority wished to limit the circumstances in which this rule could apply, it is hard to see a principled basis for a distinction between a true one man company and a company completely controlled by one man which happens to have a couple of innocent shareholders.

3 There may well be further debate about the relevance of contributory negligence to auditors' negligence claims in this context. Lord Mance regretted the lack of argument about the ability of contribution to resolve the question of relative fault as between the company and the auditor as, in his opinion, "if contributory negligence is available as a defence, it would cater for or assuage concerns about the general appropriateness of allowing recovery expressed in some of the majority judgments". Lord Phillips was not convinced that the law, in its current state, could help. "Moore Stephens' liabilities would reflect S&R's liabilities to the banks and the damages paid by Moore Stephens would be paid, indirectly to the banks. Lack of care on the part of the banks in their dealings with S&R ought to be taken into account for the purposes of contributory negligence. Yet such lack of care could not be prayed in aid by S&R in answer to the claims framed by the banks in deceit...Nor is there any obvious mechanism by which such lack of care could be relied upon by Moore Stephens in answer to the claim brought by S&R."

4 Lord Phillips appeared (albeit obiter) to suggest that there might be another route to challenge a claim against auditors for failure to detect fraud. He referred to Moore Stephens having been retained by deception to audit a wholly fictitious business. Arguably, this rendered the audit contract unenforceable and Lord Phillips found it hard to see how there was any duty owed in these circumstances. Lord Mance gives Lord Phillips' comments short shrift and considered that to hold otherwise would "emasculate audit responsibility and the auditor's well recognised duty to approach their audit role if not as bloodhounds, then certainly as watchdogs".


It must be remembered that this was a strike out application on assumed facts. It may be possible successfully to argue points on attribution or duty at trial which will be difficult on a strike out application.

That said, the majority in the House has been careful to couch their judgments in very narrow terms and, unless it is clear that there is no innocent constituency in the company, striking out a claim on the grounds of the illegality defence as Moore Stephens has done is likely to be very difficult. The question whether the claimant is a "oneman" company will be one of fact. Claimants will be alive to this and will seek to frame their cases to avoid the sort of concession made in this case. Lord Scott even thought it inappropriate to strike out this case because, despite the agreed statement of facts, he felt it was not clear from the pleadings that Mr Stojevic was the sole beneficial owner of the company.

As a result of the House of Lords judgment, the scope to invoke the illegality principle in auditors' negligence cases is narrow. Even where it may be invoked, it is unlikely that auditors will be able to strike out claims other than in the clearest cases of a "one-man" company.

It seems unlikely that this judgment will (as Lord Mance feared) greatly weaken the obligations on auditors. They are already subject to significant regulatory sanctions and are scarcely likely to audit less carefully because in some very particular circumstances general legal principle might bar a claim for damages against them.

As a final note, this case was trumpeted as the first case in the UK of any substance to be backed by commercial third party funders. Those third party funders will now be facing a large costs bill. We will see in due course whether this impacts on funders' willingness to get behind large commercial cases. But one thing that is clear is that the mere fact a funder has evaluated a claim and decided to back it is no guarantee that the claim has merits.

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.