Fraud

Recent Articles

•  

  27.11.2023

  United Kingdom

  Video surveillance in personal injury cases - QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton

  An individual who exaggerated his injuries following an accident at work has been found in contempt of court and sentenced to 10 months, following the use of surveillance footage by insurer, QBE.BackgroundOn 31 July 2023, the court determined whether QBE UK Limited’s (“QBE”) application for permission to commence contempt proceedings against Mr Mark Hilton would be granted. Originally, Mr Hilton had issued proceedings, seeking damages of £600,000, following an accident at work. Within the defence, liability was admitted and proceedings, therefore, progressed in respect of...

  Read more
•  

  27.10.2023

  International

  In overturning USD 11 billion award for fraud, High Court invites discussion on arbitration’s ability to resolve large disputes involving states

  On 23 October, in The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm), Mr Justice Robin Knowles found that an arbitration award for USD 11 billion had been “obtained by fraud” and thus was “contrary to public policy.” While the Court has yet to decide whether the award should be entirely set aside or remitted to the arbitral tribunal, Mr Justice Knowles invited discussion upon how his factual findings touched upon several key issues central to the rule of law and the conduct of arbitration including the ability of the arbitral...

  Read more
•  

  06.06.2023

  England and Wales

  Limitation periods in fraud claims: Court of Appeal clarification

  IntroductionThe Court of Appeal (“CA”) has recently considered the application of s.32(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 (“LA 1980”) which provides that where an action is based on the fraud of a defendant the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the fraud. This means that in a claim based on the tort of deceit, where the limitation period is 6 years, the claimant has 6 years from discovery of the fraud, or from when the fraud could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, to...

  Read more
•  

  21.04.2023

  United Kingdom

  Corporate failure to prevent fraud – a new era in UK law

  Corporate Criminal LiabilityIt used to be that company law and criminal law had very little to do with each other.  From the nineteenth century onwards, what we might call the “classical” theory of English corporate law held that, although civil liabilities could be incurred on behalf of a company by the company’s agents (such as directors or employees), mere agency was not enough to make a company liable for most crimes which require a specific mental state.An example is fraud. For a fraud to be committed the perpetrator must possess the mental state of dishonesty. The classical...

  Read more
•  

  28.02.2023

  Czech Republic

  Compliance management systems in Czech criminal law

  Czech criminal law enables legal entities to be exempted from criminal liability if the legal entity makes every effort reasonably required to prevent listed persons from committing crimes. Listed persons include members of a governing body or another person in a managerial position; a person in a managerial position performing managerial or supervisory activities; a person exercising decisive influence over the legal entity’s management; an employee or a person in a similar position performing work. The compliance management system (CMS) represents an effective way to fulfil this. The CMS...

  Read more
•  

  10.01.2023

  England and Wales

  Please release me - Court of Appeal clarifies how the scope of a settlement agreement will be construed

  The Court of Appeal has given guidance on the construction of a settlement agreement that is expressed to release claims unknown to either party at the date of settlement, confirming that claims in conspiracy (and fraud and dishonesty) were released even though the settlement agreement did not expressly mention such claims. Background Maranello Rosso Limited v Lohomij BV and others [2022] EWCA Civ 1667 concerned the sale by an auction house of a large collection of rare Ferraris, some of which were extremely valuable. The seller had purchased the collection using finance provided by Lohomij and...

  Read more