In the circumstances it was not an abuse of process for the ICAEW to prefer a second disciplinary complaint against an accountant after a previous complaint had failed on an evidential technicality.
The principle that a company would not have attributed to it knowledge of a fraud when that fraud was being practised on the company itself only applied where the company was the intended victim or target of the fraud and not where harm to the company merely resulted from the discovery of the fraud.
Representation letters provided by a director of a bank to its auditors were not wilfully or recklessly false, and hence provided no defence to the auditors in an action by the bank for professional negligence.
There was nothing unusual about the facts of the claimant’s case for damages arising out of a personal injury claim and, accordingly, the discount rate to be applied when assessing the future pecuniary losses was 2.5 per cent as set out by the Lord Chancellor in the Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001 SI 2001/2301.
When summing-up on conflicting evidence from two experts it was fair and reasonable for the judge to point out evidence that may assist the jury in deciding between expert evidence, and for him to put that evidence in the context of what the appellant had said.