This thesis first builds a framework to impose professional liability on Chinese auditors for misstatements and then tests the framework by field work. Auditor liability has been a recurring puzzle. This thesis intends to analyze the complex legal relationships among the players in typical auditing litigations, dissect the arguments from both the auditors and plaintiffs, and develop doctrines and check points that could help the litigation parties to evaluate the merits of their claims, to predict the litigation outcomes, and to mitigate litigation risks in the Chinese setting. The author adopts a utilitarianism perspective and utilizes the theory of “contract and status”. The main methodologies employed include: case report analysis, legal reasoning, interviews, and questionnaire survey. Comparison across jurisdictions and interdisciplinary perspectives have been utilized all through the thesis. In the first part, the author draws a portrait of the Chinese auditing profession, and then moves to synthesize the previous literature on audit liability from both accounting and legal perspectives. After this, a significant part of the thesis is devoted to analyzing the typical UK reported cases since the late 19th century including the Caparo case, Bannerman case and others to discover the UK laws regulating auditor liability. In the following chapter, the recent trends of legislation in the UK and the company law harmonization practice of the EU are reviewed. Then, based on a survey on current Chinese law and an analysis on the feasibility of transplanting the UK and EU practice into China, the author develops a proposed framework integrating doctrines and practical checking points about eligible plaintiffs, duty of care, wrongdoings, standards of care, and damage calculation and allocation in typical litigations. In the second part, the proposed framework is dissected into questions, which are examined through 38 interviews with auditors, regulators, financial statements preparers, and lawyers, and 470 survey questionnaires completed by auditors and members of the financial community, along with questions about responsibility and the technical abilities of auditors. The data from the field produces a cross-section picture of the perceptions of stakeholders on auditor liability. Statistical analysis shows there are significant differences between the auditor and non-auditor on the majority of the related issues, such as auditor’s responsibility, eligible plaintiff, and others. The empirical analysis gives general support for the proposed framework.

This thesis is an investigation of the law of damages for misrepresentation at common law and under the Misrepresentation Act, 1967. It makes three principal claims. First, the relationship that must exist between the making of a false statement and the claimant's reliance on it is one of necessity. In applying this test to individual cases, there is no rule of law that the non-breach position is always that the defendant would have said nothing or that he would have disclosed the truth: it simply depends on what a reasonable defendant would in fact have done. Secondly, the scope of liability for negligent misrepresentation is governed by what this thesis describes as the 'falsity rule'. This is the rule that a loss must be a consequence not only of the making of a false statement but also of its falsity. The rule can be traced to the late nineteenth century and is the best explanation of the SAAMCO case. Contrary to the current orthodoxy, SAAMCO does not in fact endorse the risk theory of remoteness which, in any event, is flawed both as a description of the law and as a matter of principle. Thirdly, the measure of damages under section 2(1) of the 1967 Act is the deceit measure and the measure under section 2(2) is the monetary equivalent of rescission. These provisions have given rise to difficulty principally because their legislative history has not been closely analysed. In truth, Parliament enacted section 2(1) in the mistaken belief that the common law distinguishes between deceit and negligence only for the purpose of actionability, not damages, but a mistake of this kind is conceptually distinct from a mistake about the conventional meaning of words or syntax. For these reasons, it is argued that Royscot is correctly decided but that William Sindall, with respect, is not.

The fastest growing field of law is undoubtedly that of Medical Law with the civil and disciplinary cases flowing from it. Globalization, international communication, development and evolution of Law as well as Medicine, cause this worldwide rising medical litigation. Humanitarian rights, post-modern scepticism and even iconoclastic attitudes contribute to this phenomenon. Medico-legal litigation and disciplinary complaints rise (in South Africa) up to 10 per cent per year. To assist the courts and legal profession, in medico-legal issues, helping the parties where the plaintiff has the burden of proof and the defendant for rebuttal, a medical expert witness must be used. The dilemmas and pitfalls arise, in that although knowledgeable medical experts could be used to guide the courts to the correct decision, the lack of a legal mind setting, court procedure and legal knowledge could affect the relevance, credibility and reliability, making the medical evidence of poor quality. The legal profession, deliberately, could “abuse” medical expert witnesses with demanding and coercion of results, which have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations. “Case building” occurs, especially in the adversarial systems of law, making the medical expert vulnerable under cross-examination, when it is shown that the witness has turned into a “hired gun” or is unfair. Thus, lacunae develop, making reasonable cases difficult and a quagmire of facts have to be evaluated for unreasonableness, credibility and appropriateness, compounded by the fact that seldom, cases are comparable. The danger is that the presiding officer could be misled and with limited medical knowledge and misplaced values, could reach the wrong findings. Several cases arguably show that this has led to wrongful outcomes and even unacceptable jurisprudence. The desire to “win” a case, can make a medical witness lose credibility and reasonableness with loss of objectivity, realism and relevance. With personality traits and subjectivity, the case becomes argumentative, obstinate and could even lead to lies. The miasmatic, hostile witness emerges, leading to embarrassing, unnecessary prolongation of court procedures. The medical expert witness should be well guided by the legal profession and well informed of the issues. Medical witnesses should have legal training and insight into the legal and court procedures. At the time of discovery of documents, via arbitration or mediation, medical experts should strive to reach consensus and then present their unified finding, helping the parties fairly and expediting the legal procedure and processes. / Private Law / LLM

The fastest growing field of law is undoubtedly that of Medical Law with the civil and disciplinary cases flowing from it. Globalization, international communication, development and evolution of Law as well as Medicine, cause this worldwide rising medical litigation. Humanitarian rights, post-modern scepticism and even iconoclastic attitudes contribute to this phenomenon. Medico-legal litigation and disciplinary complaints rise (in South Africa) up to 10 per cent per year. To assist the courts and legal profession, in medico-legal issues, helping the parties where the plaintiff has the burden of proof and the defendant for rebuttal, a medical expert witness must be used. The dilemmas and pitfalls arise, in that although knowledgeable medical experts could be used to guide the courts to the correct decision, the lack of a legal mind setting, court procedure and legal knowledge could affect the relevance, credibility and reliability, making the medical evidence of poor quality. The legal profession, deliberately, could “abuse” medical expert witnesses with demanding and coercion of results, which have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations. “Case building” occurs, especially in the adversarial systems of law, making the medical expert vulnerable under cross-examination, when it is shown that the witness has turned into a “hired gun” or is unfair. Thus, lacunae develop, making reasonable cases difficult and a quagmire of facts have to be evaluated for unreasonableness, credibility and appropriateness, compounded by the fact that seldom, cases are comparable. The danger is that the presiding officer could be misled and with limited medical knowledge and misplaced values, could reach the wrong findings. Several cases arguably show that this has led to wrongful outcomes and even unacceptable jurisprudence. The desire to “win” a case, can make a medical witness lose credibility and reasonableness with loss of objectivity, realism and relevance. With personality traits and subjectivity, the case becomes argumentative, obstinate and could even lead to lies. The miasmatic, hostile witness emerges, leading to embarrassing, unnecessary prolongation of court procedures. The medical expert witness should be well guided by the legal profession and well informed of the issues. Medical witnesses should have legal training and insight into the legal and court procedures. At the time of discovery of documents, via arbitration or mediation, medical experts should strive to reach consensus and then present their unified finding, helping the parties fairly and expediting the legal procedure and processes. / Private Law / LLM