翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Moores Peak ・ Moores Pocket, Queensland ・ Moores School of Music ・ Moores Springs, North Carolina ・ Moores Station ・ Moores Valley, Alabama ・ Mooresboro, North Carolina ・ Mooresbridge Stakes ・ Mooresburg School ・ Mooresburg, Pennsylvania ・ Moore Square Historic District ・ Moore SS-1 ・ Moore State Park ・ Moore Station, Texas ・ Moore Stephens ・ Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq) ・ Moore Street ・ Moore Street electricity substation ・ Moore Street Retail Market ・ Moore Theatre ・ Moore Theological College ・ Moore Town, Jamaica ・ Moore Township ・ Moore Township, Barber County, Kansas ・ Moore Township, Marion County, Kansas ・ Moore Township, Michigan ・ Moore Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania ・ Moore Township, Stevens County, Minnesota ・ Moore Traditional High School ・ Moore v. City of East Cleveland Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq) ： ウィキペディア英語版 Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq) ''Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens'' () (UKHL 39 ) is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ''ex turpi causa non oritur actio''. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" (or the creditors standing in its insolvent shoes) could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords. The decision was reviewed by the Supreme Court in ''Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation)''.〔() UKSC 23〕 ==Facts== Stone & Rolls Ltd was wholly owned and directed by Mr Stojevic. Moore Stephens was the firm of chartered accountants hired to perform audits between 1996 and 1998. Mr Stojevic deceitfully siphoned assets of the company away and falsified accounts to show more profitable transactions than were real. In previous litigation, one of the main victims (a Czech bank, Komerční banka) had successfully sued both the company and Mr Stojevic. The company went into liquidation. The company's creditors, acting in the name of the company, wished to sue the auditors for failing to detect the fraud, since both the company and Mr Stojevic were out of money. They claimed US$174m. The firm requested that the claim be struck out even before any question of their negligence was raised. They argued that even if they had been negligent it would be contrary to public policy to let the company sue them, because that would involve breach of the principle that a claimant cannot come to court and make a plea whilst relying on his own illegal behaviour (''ex turpi causa non oritur actio''). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.