CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)

UK legal case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 11, 2026
Entity authorityQ6908238 ↗
Source-derived summary

Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" (or the creditors standing in its insolvent shoes) could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.

The decision was subject to much criticism, and was reviewed by the Supreme Court in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation).

Facts

Stone & Rolls Ltd was wholly owned and directed by Mr Stojevic. Moore Stephens was the firm of chartered accountants hired to perform audits between 1996 and 1998. Mr Stojevic deceitfully siphoned assets of the company away and falsified accounts to show more profitable transactions than were real. In previous litigation, one of the main victims (a Czech bank, Komerční banka) had successfully sued both the company and Mr Stojevic. The company went into liquidation.

Editorial summary

“Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)” enters the record as uK legal case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Moore, Stephens and Stone can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2009, 1996, 1998—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Moore, Stephens and Stone.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Moore, Stephens and Stone provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6908238. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2009, 1996 and 1998.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq) primary sources, Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq) archive and Moore research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.