Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 MAY 2017

Lowick Rose V Swynson – A Wrong Righted?

The Supreme Court has overturned a ruling which had the effect of lifting the corporate veil to allow a claimant to recover against its accountants in circumstances where the loss claimed had been transferred from the claimant company to its owner.

United KingdomCorporate/Commercial Law

In a welcome decision for professionals, the Supreme Court has overturned a ruling which had the effect of lifting the corporate veil to allow a claimant to recover against its accountants in circumstances where the loss claimed had been transferred from the claimant company to its owner. The decision, which centred around the equitable doctrines of collateral payments and unjust enrichment, represents a return to a stricter approach to the characterisation of loss and a reluctance of the courts to allow general notions of 'justice' to trump established legal doctrine.

Factual Background

In 2006, Swynson, which was owned by a Mr Hunt, made a £15 million loan to EMSL. The loan was made in reliance on negligent advice given by an accountancy firm ("Lowick Rose"). In December 2008, the loan together with further loans that had been made by Swynson to EMSL, was refinanced. Mr Hunt loaned the outstanding sum to EMSL on the condition that the monies be used to repay

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from