Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Ors

Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Ors

The defendants owed the claimant a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent him from suffering loss of earnings by reason of their failure to conduct the Kaloti audit in an ethical and professional manner. This duty arose due to the proximity of the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and the absence of statutory protection for the claimant. The defendants breached this duty by colluding with the DMCC and Kaloti to conceal audit findings, failing to support the claimant, and exposing him to professional misconduct. The claimant's losses were a foreseeable consequence of these breaches and not too remote. The claim for conspiracy failed as the predominant purpose to injure was not...

Parties
Claimant: Mr Amjad Rihan; Defendant: Ernst & Young Global Limited; Defendant: Ernst & Young Europe LLP; Defendant: Ernst & Young (EMEIA) Services Limited; Defendant: EYGS LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort Negligence and Conspiracy) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim for negligence succeeds; claim for conspiracy dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Professional Ethics, Whistleblowing, Conspiracy to Injure, Remoteness of Damage, Mitigation of Loss, Causation, Employment Rights, Public Interest Disclosure
Tort Law Employment Law Professional Negligence Conflict of Laws Negligence Duty of Care Professional Ethics Whistleblowing +6 more

Case Brief

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Amjad Rihan

Claimant

Ernst & Young Global Limited

Defendant

Ernst & Young Europe LLP

Defendant

Ernst & Young (EMEIA) Services Limited

Defendant

EYGS LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort Negligence and Conspiracy) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed the claimant a duty of care to prevent economic loss arising from professional misconduct and safety concerns.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached that duty by their conduct in the Kaloti audit.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's losses were caused by the defendants' breach and are recoverable.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants owed the claimant a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent him from suffering loss of earnings by reason of their failure to conduct the Kaloti audit in an ethical and professional manner. This duty arose due to the proximity of the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and the absence of statutory protection for the claimant. The defendants breached this duty by colluding with the DMCC and Kaloti to conceal audit findings, failing to support the claimant, and exposing him to professional misconduct. The claimant's losses were a foreseeable consequence of these breaches and not too remote. The claim for conspiracy failed as the predominant purpose to injure was not...

Court Disposition

Claim for negligence succeeds; claim for conspiracy dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant for damages in negligence: $10,843,941 (USD) and £117,950 (GBP), subject to adjustment for tax.
  • Claim for conspiracy to injure dismissed.