澳洲代写-罗门公司案的案例分析。安达信的案例为参照历史判例法铺平了道路。历史判例法明确规定，债权人有资格从HIH保险公司获得欠款。安徒生需要参考的一个具有里程碑意义的案例是所罗门诉所罗门公司案(1896)，UKHL 1 (1897) AC 22。这个案例是关于所罗门成立了一家靴子和鞋子的公司，他后来邀请他的儿子们进入这个公司，但所罗门间接拥有经营这个公司的权力。所罗门将公司以纸面形式出售给他的儿子们，然后向公司提供了一笔可观的贷款，在那里他获得了债券和利息，因此他成为了公司的间接所有者。当公司倒闭时，贷款没有支付。但所罗门之外的债权人之一Broderip要求支付这笔钱。
The case is about Salomon forming a company of boots and shoes, in which he later invited his sons into the business, but indirectly Salomon held the power to operate the business. Salomon sold the business on paper to his sons, and then gave a significant loan to the company where he received debentures and interest payments, thus he became the indirect owner of the company. When the business declined, the loan was not paid. But Broderip, one of the creditors apart from Salomon, claimed his amount to be paid. The liquidator gave the loan amount to Salomon, and having no recovery amount left after that, Broderip was unable to recover his dues. He sued Salomon and the court made a decision in favour of Broderip. Court announced that Salomon was an indirect owner and the debentures and share sale was simply a farce and not genuine. It also announced that Salomon was indemnified to cover Broderip’s credit payments.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100 is a famous tort law case in which Donoghue, while dining in a restaurant, found a dead snail in her drink (Markesinis & Deakin, 1999). On drinking, Donoghue was hospitalised and underwent costly treatment. She sued Stevenson who is the owner of the drink manufacturing company and the restaurant owner. She claimed that Stevenson was not attentive and responsible enough for making available fresh and drinkable products to its customers. Stevenson argued that Donoghue’s condition was being exaggerated, but the court held that the maker of a product has a duty of care toward the customer. Thus Stevenson is liable for her loss and must repay the claim made by her. This applies here as HIH managers had committed a tort of negligence with intentional meddling with the finances and hiding true facts.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is another case of tort law, where Palsgraf sued Long Island Railroad. When Palsgraf was boarding the train, two other men were boarding the same train and one of them, carrying a package, happen to dropped on the floor, which resulted in a coin-operated scale to hit her. This applies here because the railroad employees acted negligently in assisting the man in boarding. The employee could not assist the man and the scale hit Palsgraf. She was awarded a lump sum payment.
Tort law is large in HIH case. These cases infer that Andersen is liable to pay its clients and also the clients of HIH for their negligence.
Negligence proof needs some conditions for the claim to be accepted. Firstly, the claimant needs to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care toward the claimant, which establishes a primary connection. Second, it must be proven that the claimant has suffered a genuine loss but not a manufactured or fictitious one. Thirdly, it must be proven that the loss suffered is due to the lack of fulfilling the duty of care that the defendant owed to the claimant. These conditions prove proper negligence and provide justice in such cases to allow the claimant of a favourable decision.