Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 25.6 MB]
Categories:
Corporate & Commercial Law
Insurance Law
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast aims to provide the listener with a concise understanding of the facts and issues in the case of Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd [2009]. It will then go on to analyses the deficiencies in the House of Lords' judgment and outline the arguments in favour of distinguishing cases of attribution and imputation in the law of agency and how this distinction goes on to affect a principal's right of recovery.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Be aware of the facts and issues at first instance and appeal in Moore Stephens;
  • Understand the scope of the rule on imputation in the law of agency;
  • Understand the arguments in favour of a distinction between cases of attribution and cases of imputation;
  • Have been reminded of operation of the rules of primary and vicarious liability;
  • Be aware of the arguments in favour of limiting the application of Re Hampshire Land exception.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Practical Guide
Sources and References:
  • Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd [2009] UKHL 39;
  • Re Hampshire Land Company [1896] 2 Ch 743;
  • P. Watts 'The Shareholder as Co-promise' LQR Vol. 117 (2001);
  • Chartbrook Limited v Persimmon Homes Limited and Ors [2009] UKHL 38;
  • Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500;
  • Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141;
  • Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716;
  • KR v Royal & Sun Alliance plc [2006] EWCA Civ 1454;
  • Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [1997] QB 897;
  • Bawden v London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co [1892] 2 QB 534;
  • Group Josi Re v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1152;
  • Arab Bank plc v Zurich Insurance Co [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 262.

This podcast is a recording of a seminar organised by 4 New Square in the City of London in September 2009. The topics discussed by the speakers in this podcast centre around the issues of attribution and imputation of knowledge from an agent to his principal in the House of Lords case of Moore Stephens [2009].

The first speaker, Michael Soole QC outlines the facts of the case. He is followed by Professor Robert Merkin who examines in detail the ratio in the speeches of the Law Lords and proposes a novel distinction between cases of attribution and imputation and the proper application of the so called Re Hampshire Land exception.

Podcast added 12/10/09

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-10-31

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com