Notes of Cases
P. H. Pettit
affiliation not provided to SSRN
January 18, 2011
The Modern Law Review, Vol. 22, Issue 1, pp. 87-90, 2011
The greater part of the judgment of Danckwerts J. in G. L. Baker, Ltd. v. Medway Building & Supplies, Ltd.,1 is concerned with the unsuccessful defence raised by the defendant under the Limitation Act, 1939. This note is, however, concerned with a different point, which is of considerable interest, although it occupies little space in the report. It seems desirable to begin by giving a brief account of the facts of the case, which, fortunately, were not complex. The plaintiff company had as its auditor one Titley who was a chartered accountant and a director of the defendant company. Titley was entrusted2 by the plaintiff with the sum of approximately £80,000 which Titley paid into his business account. Titley fraudulently paid some £6,000 to the defendant by means of cheques drawn on his business account which, as appeared from the bank statement, were paid out of the moneys entrusted to Titley by the plaintiff. Titley, who was eventually tried and sentenced to a term of seven years' imprisonment for his frauds, had prior to the present action been sued to judgment by the plaintiff, but the judgment remained entirely unsatisfied and the plaintiff had never succeeded in recovering any part of its moneys from Titley. The plaintiff now sought to recover from the defendant the sums which the defendant had admittedly received from Titley.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 4Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 3, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 1.047 seconds