UK: The UK Supreme Court Re-Visits Attribution Of Directors' Knowledge And The Illegality Defence Once More

Last Updated: 13 November 2019
Article by Susan Rosser, Ian McDonald and Jeremy Holden

Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer, a company named Singularis, by not preventing an individual who was both the customer's sole shareholder and chairman from making fraudulent transfers of the company's assets. 

Singularis was a company registered in the Cayman Islands which had been set up to manage the personal assets of a Saudi Arabian businessman, Mr Al Sanea. He was the sole shareholder, a director and the chairman, president and treasurer; he also had sole signing powers over the company's bank accounts. Singularis had six other directors but they did not exercise any influence over the management of the company. The bank argued that Mr Al Sanea was Singularis' controlling mind and will.

In June and July 2009, Mr Al Sanea instructed the bank to make payments totalling approximately $204.5m to third parties out of monies held in Singularis' account. The payments were held by the judge at first instance to be a misappropriation of Singularis' funds (a point which was not appealed) and left Singularis unable to meet the demands of its creditors. On 20 August 2009, Mr Al Sanea placed Singularis in voluntary liquidation. On 18 September 2009 the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands made a compulsory winding up order and joint liquidators were appointed. The liquidators subsequently brought a claim in Singularis' name against the bank for damages amounting to the value of the misappropriations made by Mr Al Sanea from the company's bank account.

The judge at first instance, Mrs Justice Rose, found that the bank's employees had acted honestly and therefore the bank was not liable for dishonestly assisting Mr Al Sanea. However, she found that the bank had been negligent, with Singularis being held 25% contributory negligent. As established in Barclays Bank Plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All E.R. 363, an implied term of the contract between a bank and its customer is that the bank owes a duty of care not to execute the customer's order if it knows the order to be dishonestly given, or shuts its eyes to obvious dishonesty, or acts recklessly in failing to make inquiries. In this case, the judge found on the facts that any reasonable banker would have realised that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that Mr Al Sanea was perpetrating a fraud on the company.

The bank argued that Mr Al Sanea's knowledge that the payment instructions were fraudulent should be attributed to Singularis. It also raised defences to Singularis' Quincecare claim against the bank, arguing that it should fail for illegality, lack of causation or because of a countervailing claim for deceit in that the bank had acted on the basis of dishonest misrepresentations made by Mr Al Sanea.

The Supreme Court (Lady Hale giving judgment) upheld the decision of the courts below that the bank was liable to Singularis.

The two 'illegalities' relied on by Daiwa were Mr Al Sanea's provision of false documents in relation to the payments and his breach of fiduciary duty towards Singularis. Relying on the leading case on illegality of Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467, the Supreme Court upheld Mrs Justice Rose's ruling that fiduciary duties are intended to protect a company from becoming the victim of the wrongful exercise of power by its officers. Lady Hale said that purpose would not be enhanced by preventing the company's recovery of the money wrongfully removed from its account. As to the second illegality – the provision of false documents – the purpose of the prohibition on making false statements was said to be to protect both the bank from being deceived and the company from having its funds misappropriated. Although the purpose of protecting the bank would be enhanced by denying Singularis' claim, Lady Hale thought that purpose was achieved through the Quincecare duty, which strikes a careful balance between the interests of the customer and those of the bank. Undermining that balance by denying the claim on the grounds of an illegality would not enhance the integrity of the law when the exceptional circumstances needed for the duty to arise and be breached are present. The power to make a deduction for contributory negligence enabled the court to make an appropriate adjustment on liability. 

As an alternative defence, the bank argued that if the fraud was attributed to Singularis, its loss was caused by its own fault and not that of the bank. The Supreme Court held, however, that the purpose of the Quincecare duty is to protect the bank's customers from harm caused by people for whom the customer is responsible. The fraudulent instruction to Daiwa gave rise to the duty of care which Daiwa breached, thus causing the loss. Similarly, the Supreme Court also dismissed the bank's countervailing claim in deceit, agreeing with Mrs Justice Rose that it was the bank's breach of duty and not Mr Al Sanea's misrepresentations that was the cause of the bank's exposure to the claim for Singularis' loss. The bank could not rely on the very fraud which gave rise to its duty to escape liability for that duty.

On the question of attribution, the Supreme Court held that Mr Al Sanea's fraud should not be attributed to the company for the purposes of the Quincecare claim. The basic principle was that a properly incorporated company has an identity and legal personality separate from that of its shareholders and directors. The company has to act through the medium of real human beings but the acts of those persons are only treated as the acts and intentions of the company in circumstances specified by its constitution, or the ordinary rules of agency and vicarious liability, or other particular rules of law. Lady Hale said that the Supreme Court had held unanimously in Bilta v Nazir that where a company had been the victim of wrongdoing by its directors, the wrongdoing of the directors cannot be attributed to the company as a defence to a claim brought against the directors – and their co-conspirators – by the company's liquidator for the loss suffered by the company as a result of the wrongdoing. The key to any question of whether to attribute the knowledge of a fraudulent director to the company is always to be found in consideration of the context and purpose for which the attribution is relevant.

The context here was the bank's breach of its duty of care to protect Singularis against this sort of misappropriation of its funds, which by definition would be done by a trusted agent of the company who was authorised to withdraw money from the account. The Supreme Court said that to attribute the fraud of a trusted agent of the company to the company would denude the duty of any value in cases where it is most needed and would be a retrograde step.


In the end, the Supreme Court's decision was straightforward: Mr Al Sanea's knowledge was not attributable to Singularis. Consequently, the bank's three defences – illegality, lack of causation and an equal and countervailing claim in deceit, of which Lady Hale cuttingly said none was "a very promising basis for denying liability" in any case – failed.

If Lady Hale's judgment is looked at in the round, a common theme can be discerned. The Quincecare duty, although not the subject of the appeal, appears throughout the judgment as contextually relevant to the decisions on the other legal principles.

  • A defence of illegality, based on the prohibition on making false statements, was not available because the balance of interests achieved by the Quincecare duty satisfied the purposes of that prohibition, and would be undone by permitting a defence of illegality.
  • It would be self-contradictory to say that the liability for breach of a duty to protect a person from causing themselves harm (as in the Quincecare duty) can be avoided because the breach could not have been the cause of the harm since the victim caused it to himself.
  • As to the countervailing claim in deceit, because the existence of fraud was a pre-condition for Singularis' claim based on breach of the Quincecare duty, Lady Hale thought it would be a "surprising result if Daiwa... could escape liability by placing reliance on the existence of the fraud that was itself a pre-condition for its liability."
  • Following Bilta, the key to any question of attribution is to be found in the context and purpose for which it is relevant. Where that context is a breach of the Quincecare duty, the purpose of which is to protect the company against misappropriation of funds, attributing the fraud of the director to the company would "denude the duty of any value in cases where it is most needed", such that in a case like this, there would in reality be no Quincecare duty. Lady Hale thought that would be a "retrograde step.

The Quincecare duty by its nature will only arise and be breached in exceptional circumstances involving dishonest activity. As such, once breached, it appears the Court will take a dim view of paradoxical attempts to escape liability by reason of that very activity – this would nullify the entire purpose of the Quincecare duty. Banks should be mindful that the Quincecare duty exists to protect companies against dishonest activity by a person who is, as Lady Hale said, by definition a trusted agent of the company. This judgment is a further step in the trend to put the onus firmly onto banks to ensure the robustness of their systems for detecting and acting on potential dishonest activity, even, and perhaps especially, by those so closely connected with their customer's genuine activities.

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2019. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions