Hit The Order Button To Order A **Custom Paper**

>> CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS FROM AustralianExpertWriters.com <<

12 Mar
2020

Case: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman AssignmentTutorOnlineScottish Court Opinions AssignmentTutorOnline | Good Grade Guarantee!

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Bannerman Johnstone Maclay (a firm)                           
AssignmentTutorOnline
     [2005] CSIH 39, [2006] BCC 148, 2005 SLT 579, 2005 Scot (D) 25/5  
    Court: CSIH
Judgment Date: 26/05/2005  
Catchwords & Digest
COMPANIES – AUDITOR – DUTY OF CARE – THIRD PARTY – KNOWLEDGE OF THIRD PARTY’S RELIANCE ON AUDITED ACCOUNTS
          The claimant bank had advanced substantial sums of money to a company over the period during which the defendant firm had acted as the company’s auditors. The company became insolvent and the claimant suffered a substantial loss on the amounts advanced to the company. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant, alleging that it had owed the claimant a duty of care in preparing the company’s accounts. The court accepted that a relationship of proximity could exist even if the defendant had not intended that the claimant should rely on the company’s audited accounts. It fell to be determined whether a relationship of proximity could exist where the defendant had not intended that the claimant should rely on the audited accounts. Held, while an express intention on the part of the provider of information that a third party should rely on the information for a specific purpose would support the existence of the necessary relationship of proximity for a duty of care to arise, such an intention was not essential. In some circumstances, it would be sufficient for the information provider to know that the information would be passed to the third party recipient for a specific purpose and that the recipient was likely to rely on it for that purpose. The claimant’s evidence that the defendant was aware of the claimant’s involvement in the company’s financial affairs and the claimant’s reliance on the accuracy of the information was sufficient to support its case.
Case History
Annotations
Case Name
Citations
Court
Date
 

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Bannerman Johnstone Maclay (a firm)
[2005] CSIH 39,  [2006] BCC 148,  2005 SLT 579,  2005 Scot (D) 25/5
CSIH
26/05/2005
 
Affirming
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Bannerman Johnstone Maclay (a firm)
[2005] BCC 235,  (2002) Times,  1 August,  2003 SC 125,  2003 SLT 181,  2002 Scot (D) 24/7
CSOH
23/07/2002
 
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment
Case Name
Citations
Court
Date
 
Considered
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
[1990] 2 AC 605,  [1990] 1 All ER 568,  [1990] 2 WLR 358,  [1991] LRC (Comm) 460,  [1990] BCLC 273,  [1990] BCC 164,  11 LDAB 563,  134 Sol Jo 494,  [1990] 12 LS Gaz R 42,  [1990] NLJR 248,  (1990) Times,  12 February
HL
08/02/1990
 
Document information
Court
Judgment date
26/05/2005

READ ALSO  CRIMINAL Assignments # 9 and 10 – Suppression Hearings - NO PLAGIARISM

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL – NO PLAGIARISM.

  • **REMEMBER TO PRECISE PAGE NUMBER**
  • Hit The Order Button To Order A **Custom Paper**

>> 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS FROM AustralianExpertWriters.com <<