Attribution in Company Law. Issue 5 (September 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lim, Ernest
• Is Part Of: Modern law review. Volume 77:Issue 5(2014)
• Page Start: 794
• Page End: 807
• Publication Date: 2014-09
• Subjects: Law -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 340
• DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12091
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0026-7961

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>In <italic>Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation)</italic> v <italic>Nazir (No 2)</italic>, the Court of Appeal held that the <italic>ex turpi causa</italic> defence was inapplicable by refusing to attribute the fraud of the directors and the sole shareholder to the company in connection with the company's claim against them and third party co‐conspirators. It is significant that the court has not only clarified the law in relation to attribution, but it did so by rejecting the majority's reasoning and endorsing the dissenting judgment in the House of Lords decision in <italic>Stone &amp; Rolls (in liquidation)</italic> v <italic>Moore Stephens (a firm)</italic>. This article evaluates the decision in <italic>Bilta</italic> by critically examining the fundamental principles and policies that apply to the three distinct circumstances under which corporate attribution should or should not take place.</p> </abstract>