UK: England and Wales: the true and fair view

Judgment was given yesterday by the Court of Appeal in Macquarie Internationale Investments Ltd v Glencore UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 697. The court upheld the trial judge's finding (at [2009] EWHC 2267 (Comm)) that there had been no breach of a warranty which provided that [a] audited accounts were prepared in accordance with accounting standards and a true and fair view of a company's assets and liability [b] a set of management accounts had been prepared in accordance with relevant accounting standards.

The decision is of interest because of what is said about the true and fair view; in this regard, Jackson LJ observed (paras. [51] and [52]):

... a joint opinion written by Mr Leonard Hoffmann QC and Ms Mary Arden in September 1983 has been highly influential and was relied upon by the judge in the present case. I recall that that joint opinion was in general circulation in the 1980s. It appears to have left an imprint on judicial thinking and on legal writing in subsequent decades. The essential thesis of Mr Hoffmann and Ms Arden was that the concept of "true and fair view" as used in the Companies Acts is an abstraction. It is for the courts to decide in any given case whether the accounts do give a true and fair view. However, in deciding this question the courts look for guidance to the ordinary practices of accountants and in particular to the standards published by the relevant professional body. These published standards not only guide accountants in the preparation of accounts but also mould the expectations of those who read or use the accounts. Therefore compliance with professional standards is prima facie evidence that the accounts present a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities of the company or the group. Deviation from accepted accounting principles is prima facie evidence that the accounts do not present a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities of the company or the group.

In subsequent decisions courts have treated compliance with published professional standards as strong evidence that the accounts in question did present a true and fair view: see Lloyd Cheyman & Co Ltd v Littlejohn & Co [1987] BCLC 303 at 313; Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v STC Submarine Systems Ltd (20th December 1996, unreported) at page 20 of the transcript; Bairstow v Queen's Moat Houses plc (23rd July 1999) at pages 31-32 of the transcript and Revenue and Customs Commissioners v William Grant & Sons Distillers Ltd [2007] UKHL 15; [2007] 1 WLR 1448 at paragraphs 2 and 38".