Implications of the High Court’s judgment in Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Ors

Please join us on Tuesday 27 April at 16:00 GMT for a webinar on the High Court judgment in the Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Ors case.

Ben Hubble QC of 4 New Square Chambers alongside Paul Dowling and Mike Cain from Leigh Day’s International and Employment teams will discuss the implications of the High Court’s judgment in Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Ors, following EY’s recent withdrawal of its appeal against the decision.   

This ground-breaking judgment creates a new duty of care on UK multinational companies not to embroil overseas workers in unethical conduct. In this webinar Ben Hubble and Paul Dowling, who acted for the claimant Amjad Rihan, will discuss the background to the case, the legal issues and the implications of the judgment for UK companies providing professional services overseas. In addition Mike Cain will provide some background on other whistleblowing remedies currently available under UK employment legislation.

The case was brought by Mr Rihan, a former EY partner, after he was forced out of his job when he blew the whistle on an unprofessional and unethical audit of a Dubai gold refiner. The High Court ruled on 17 April 2020 that EY, formerly known as Ernst & Young, repeatedly breached the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants at the highest levels of management during an audit of Dubai Gold refiner, Kaloti Jewellery International. The court found that EY had breached its duty to Mr Rihan by reason of EY’s failure to perform the Kaloti audit in an ethical and professional manner.

The audit findings included billions of dollars’ worth of cash transactions; importing large quantities of gold from Moroccan suppliers which had been coated with silver to avoid gold export restrictions; and transactions with high-risk countries such as Sudan, DRC and Iran without proper due diligence. Mr Rihan was forced out of his job and had to flee Dubai in fear for his safety after he tried to raise the alarm about the misconduct. The court awarded him a total of USD10.8 million in damages.