UK: England and Wales: auditors' liability and the ex turpi causa principle [a belated posting]

Several months ago the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone & Rolls Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 644 and it would appear from recent reports in the legal press that an appeal to the House of Lords will be made. The case required the Court of Appeal to consider the operation of the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle (no cause of action may be founded on an illegal act) in the context of a negligence claim brought by the liquidators of a company (Stone & Rolls) against a company's auditors (Moore Stephens). 

The liquidators argued that the auditors had failed, during the course of several audits, to identify the fraud of Mr. Stojevic (the directing mind and will of the company). Mr. Stojevic fraudulently obtained, through the company, money from various banks. One of these banks sued the company and Mr. Stojevic and was awarded damages against Mr. Stojevic and the company. The company was unable to pay and entered liquidation. The auditors denied negligence and applied for the action to be struck out on the basis that the claim was barred by the ex turpi causa principle. The first instance judge declined to strike out the claim (see [2007] EWHC 1826 (Comm)). 

The Court of Appeal held that the liquidators' claim was barred by the ex turpi causa principle and struck out the claim. The court rejected the argument that the company was the victim of fraud and attributed Mr. Stojevic's actions to the company. There was not, the court unanimously agreed, any room for discretion in the application of the ex turpi causa principle because, as Lord Goff observed in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] AC 340 at 355B: "...the principle is not a principle of justice; it is a principle of policy, whose application is indiscriminate and so can lead to unfair consequences as between the parties to litigation. Moreover the principle allows no room for the exercise of any discretion by the court in favour of one party or the other".  The court also rejected the argument that the ex turpi causa principle did not apply where the claim was based on the commission of a fraud where the prevention of that fraud was "the very thing" that the defendants had undertaken to do. In this regard, Rimer LJ observed (at para. [109]):

There is ... no support in the authorities that we were shown for the proposition that if "the very thing" from which the defendant owed a duty to save the claimant harmless is, or includes, the commission of a criminal offence, the public policy defence based on the ex turpi causa principle will be overridden so as to enable the bringing of the claim that relies on the claimant's illegality".

Note: The case has been reported here in the Law Society Gazette.

Postscript (2 Sep 2008): The House of Lords Judicial Office informs me: "[the] petition for leave was presented on 18 July 2008 ... and we would hope to get a decision on leave before the end of November this year".