Should Auditors Owe a Duty to Stakeholders?

Pengarang

  • Loganathan Krishnan Department of International Business, Faculty of Accountancy and Management, University of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/jgd2012.8.1

Kata kunci:

auditors, duty, stakeholders

Abstrak

The traditional view in business law is that auditors should only owe their duties to a company since they are solely under a contractual relationship with the company. This is justified on the basis that it is the company which suffers loss if the auditors’ report is untrue. Nonetheless, it is trite to declare that stakeholders may also suffer a loss if the auditors’ report is untrue and it was relied upon. If the traditional view continues to be upheld, then the stakeholders will never be in a legally secured position as they cannot bring an action although the auditors’ report is untrue, there is reliance on and loss is suffered by the stakeholders. With this revelation, the auditors should also bear in mind the rights and interests of the stakeholders. This is because the information revealed by the auditors in their report is of fundamental importance to the stakeholders. Hence, this study examines to whom auditors owe their duty under the current legal position. The examination will unfold as to whether the scope of to whom auditors owe their duty is restrictive. The study will then investigate whether the auditors should owe their duty to stakeholders and the legal justifications for attaching such a duty. Notably, many fraudulent activities and ventures can be planned with the ingenious work and plan of the auditors. Therefore, the guiding principles for auditors should be responsibility and accountability. Arguably, this responsibility and accountability must be owed to a wider circle of persons and bodies, that is, the stakeholders.

Rujukan

ADT Ltd v BDO Binder Hamlyn [1996] BCC 808 Al Saudi Banque v Clark Pixley [1989] 5 BCC 822

Andrew & Ors v Kounnis Freeman (a firm) [1999] 2 BCLC 641

Arjunan, K. (1998). Company law in Malaysia – Cases and commentary. Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Journal.

Arjunan, K. & Low, C. K. (1995). Understanding company law in Malaysia. Sydney: LBC. Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand [1997] 1 BCLC 427

Baxt, R. (1990). The Liability of auditors – The pendulum swings back. Companies & Securities Law Journal, 8, 249.

Blair, M. (1995). Ownership and control: Rethinking corporate governance for the Twenty-First Century, Washington: Brookings. Candler v Crane Christmas & Co Ltd [1951] 2 KB 164

Chan, K. C., Cheah, F. C & Heng, C. P. (2003). Handbook of Malaysian company law. Petaling Jaya: Asian Centre for Professional Development. Controller of Insurance v H.C. Das [1957] (A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 387) Coulthard v Neville Russell 1998] 1 BCLC 143 Daniels v Anderson [1995] 13 ACLC 614

Dean, J. (2001). Directing public companies: Company law and the stakeholder society. London: Cavendish. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance v S.N. Das Gupta (A.I.R. 1956 Cal. 414, 420) Electra Private Equity Partners v KPMG Peat Marwick [2000] BCC 368 Galoo Ltd v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 W.L.R 1360, 1382

Handy, C. (1996). Are jobs for life killing enterprise? Beyond Certainty, 87.

Hanrahan, P., Ramsay, I., Stapledon, G., Nariman, A. & Bidin, A. (2002). Commercial applications of company law in Malaysia. Singapore: CCH.

Harrington, L. K. (1996). Ethics and public policy analysis: Stakeholders’ interests and regulatory policy. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 375, 379-80. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v P.K. Mukherjee [1968] 2 Comp LJ 211 Ikumene Singapore (Pte) Ltd v Leong Chee Leng [1993] 3 SLR 24 James McNaughton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson [1991] 1 All ER 134 JEB Fasteners v Marks, Bloom & Co [1983] 1 All ER 583

Khoury, L. (2001), The liability of auditors beyond their clients: A comparative study. McGill Law Journal, 46, 413.

Knapp, M. C. (1987). An empirical study of audit committee support for auditors involved in technical disputes with client management. The Accounting Review, 62(3), 578-88.

Koh, P. M. C. & Yeo, V. C. S. (1999). Company law. Singapore: Butterworths Asia. Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick [2000] 4 All ER 540

Lee, T. A. & Tweedie, D. P. (1975). Accounting information: An investigation of private shareholder usage. Accounting and Business Research, 280.

Lewis, J. R & Cheah, F. S. (1997). Student handbook of Malaysian company law. Kuala Lumpur: Cedar. JGD – Journal of Governance and Development Vol.8, 2012 (1-12)

Loh, S. C. (2003). Corporate powers accountability. 2nd ed. Kuala Lumpur: Butterworths.

Low, C. K. (2002). Corporate governance, an Asia-Pacific critique. Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell. Morgan Crucible Co plc v Hill Samuel Bank Ltd [1991] 1 All ER 148

Nobel, P. (2003). Audit within the framework of corporate governance. In K. J. Hopt, & E. Wymeersch, (Eds), Capital markets and company law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pacific Acceptance Corp Ltd v Forsyth (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 29 Pitfield, R. R. & Hughes, P. F. Key to company law and practice, 4th ed. London: Secretaries Journal. PwC to complete review of Pempena by Sept, August 26, 2008, New Straits Times, p 39. Re London & General Bank (No 2) [1895] 2 Ch 673

Rohatgi, K. B. (1981). Auditor’s duty to third party. Current Law Journal, 1, 111. Sasea Finance Ltd (in liq) v KPMG (a firm) [2000] 1 All ER 676 Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane [1978] 1 NZLR 553

Sin, B. A. (1990). The duty of care of auditors: To whom should the duty be owed. Malayan Law Journal, 3, iii. Standard Chartered Bank v Coopers & Lybrand [1993] 3 SLR 712 Spies v The Queen. [2000] HCA 43 Texas Tunnelling Co v City of Chattanooga 204 F. Supp. 821 (E.D. Tenn. 1962), reversed in 329 F 2d 402 (6th cir 1964) Twomax Ltd & Goode v Dickson, McFarlane & Robinson and Gordon v Dickson, McFarlane &

Robinson (1982) S.C.113 delivered on 5 March 1982 in the Session Courts of Scotland

Webb, R. (1991). Auditors must share Blame-Bosch. The Australian Financial Review, 41.

Zingales, L. (1998). Corporate governance. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. P. Newman (Ed). New York: Macmillan.

Diterbitkan

2012-12-31

Terbitan

Bahagian

Articles

Cara Memetik

Krishnan, L. (2012). Should Auditors Owe a Duty to Stakeholders? Journal of Governance and Development (JGD), 8, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.32890/jgd2012.8.1

##plugins.generic.citations.panel.title##

##plugins.generic.citations.panel.harvested## 2026-09-08
0 ##plugins.generic.citations.panel.citationsNone##

##plugins.generic.citations.panel.body##

##plugins.generic.citations.panel.identifiers## DOI 10.32890/jgd2012.8.1 OpenAlex W7208770256

Artikel yang paling banyak dibaca oleh pengarang yang sama