Bank of India v Morris & Ors

Bank of India v Morris & Ors

The knowledge and dishonesty of Mr. Samant, Bank of India’s senior manager who negotiated and implemented the relevant transactions with BCCI, is attributable to Bank of India for the purposes of section 213(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The board’s lack of knowledge does not shield the bank from liability, as the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Bank of India; Respondents: Christopher Morris & 6 Ors (Liquidators of BCCI SA and BCCI (Overseas) Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division, Companies Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Trading, Attribution of Knowledge, Corporate Liability, Vicarious Liability, Civil Liability for Fraud
Insolvency Law Company Law Fraudulent Trading Attribution of Knowledge Corporate Liability Vicarious Liability Civil Liability for Fraud

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of India

Appellant

Christopher Morris & 6 Ors (Liquidators of BCCI SA and BCCI (Overseas) Limited)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division, Companies Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bank of India, through its employee Mr. Samant, had the requisite knowledge to be liable under section 213(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for fraudulent trading with BCCI.
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Samant’s knowledge and dishonesty could be attributed to Bank of India for the purposes of section 213.
  3. 3 Whether the directors of Bank of India were also dishonest or had knowledge of the fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The knowledge and dishonesty of Mr. Samant, Bank of India’s senior manager who negotiated and implemented the relevant transactions with BCCI, is attributable to Bank of India for the purposes of section 213(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The board’s lack of knowledge does not shield the bank from liability, as the statutory purpose would be defeated if attribution were so limited. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Bank of India is liable to contribute to the losses to creditors of BCCI which would have been avoided but for the transactions.
  • Liquidators’ application to amend pleadings to add vicarious liability refused.