Attribution in Company Law

14 Pages Posted: 29 Aug 2014

See all articles by Ernest Lim

Ernest Lim

National University of Singapore (NUS) - Faculty of Law

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: September 2014


In Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir (No 2), the Court of Appeal held that the ex turpi causa defence was inapplicable by refusing to attribute the fraud of the directors and the sole shareholder to the company in connection with the company's claim against them and third party co‚Äźconspirators. It is significant that the court has not only clarified the law in relation to attribution, but it did so by rejecting the majority's reasoning and endorsing the dissenting judgment in the House of Lords decision in Stone & Rolls (in liquidation) v Moore Stephens (a firm). This article evaluates the decision in Bilta by critically examining the fundamental principles and policies that apply to the three distinct circumstances under which corporate attribution should or should not take place.

Keywords: attribution, ex turpi causa, Hampshire Land

Suggested Citation

Lim, Ernest, Attribution in Company Law (September 2014). The Modern Law Review, Vol. 77, Issue 5, pp. 794-807, 2014. Available at SSRN: or

Ernest Lim (Contact Author)

National University of Singapore (NUS) - Faculty of Law ( email )

469G Bukit Timah Road
Eu Tong Sen Building
Singapore, 259776

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics