Komercni Banka, A.S v Stone and Rolls Ltd. & Anor [2002] EWHC 2263 (Comm) (15 November 2002)

Komercni Banka, A.S v Stone and Rolls Ltd. & Anor [2002] EWHC 2263 (Comm) (15 November 2002)

The court found that the defendants, particularly Mr Stojevic, acted dishonestly and knowingly presented documents (invoices and warrant lists) to the bank which did not reflect genuine underlying transactions. The representations made to the bank were false, and the defendants intended to deceive or were reckless as to whether the bank was deceived. The claimant bank relied on these misrepresentations and suffered loss. The defendants are jointly liable in deceit.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 2263 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Komercni Banka, A. S; Defendant: Stone and Rolls Limited; Defendant: Zvonko Stojevic
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud/deceit / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Letters of Credit, Deceit, Misrepresentation, Damages, Joint Liability
Commercial Law Banking Law Fraud Letters of Credit Deceit Misrepresentation Damages Joint Liability

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Komercni Banka, A. S

Claimant

Stone and Rolls Limited

Defendant

Zvonko Stojevic

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud/deceit / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants procured fraudulent presentation of documents under letters of credit
  2. 2 Whether the defendants acted dishonestly or recklessly in presenting invoices and warrant lists
  3. 3 Whether the claimant bank relied on misrepresentations

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants, particularly Mr Stojevic, acted dishonestly and knowingly presented documents (invoices and warrant lists) to the bank which did not reflect genuine underlying transactions. The representations made to the bank were false, and the defendants intended to deceive or were reckless as to whether the bank was deceived. The claimant bank relied on these misrepresentations and suffered loss. The defendants are jointly liable in deceit.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendants held jointly liable in deceit
  • Defendants ordered to pay damages to claimant bank