Court rules in favor of auditor in Ickenham Travel Group Limited v Tiffin Green Limited, finding no causal link between audit failures and alleged loss

Citation: [2024] EWHC 27 (Comm)
Judgment on


In the case of Ickenham Travel Group Limited v Tiffin Green Limited, the High Court of Justice examined several legal principles, including the duty of professional care by auditors, factual and legal causation of loss, and the scope of an auditor’s duty. The case also touched upon the application of the limitation period for bringing a claim. This article critically analyses these legal topics and their application within the case.

Key Facts

Ickenham Travel Group Limited (Ickenham) filed a claim against its former auditors, Tiffin Green Limited (Tiffin Green), for failing to detect significant irregularities in their accounting systems that resulted in a substantial understatement of liabilities. Ickenham argued that Tiffin Green’s negligence led to a forced “fire sale” of its business division, Business Travel Direct (BTD), for well below its alleged true value, as well as professional fees incurred. The judgment revolved around whether Tiffin Green’s audit failures caused these losses.

Duty of Professional Care by Auditors

The core duty of Tiffin Green, as auditors, was to conduct their audit with the skill expected of a reasonably competent auditor and observe statutory and regulatory duties. The court referred to expert witnesses who agreed that a competent auditor would have identified the significant understatement that arose from fundamental accounting failures, thereby confirming Tiffin Green’s breach of duty.

Factual Causation

Factual causation was scrutinized via the “but-for” test, considering whether the alleged loss would not have arisen if not for Tiffin Green’s actions. The judge concluded that the steps Ickenham ended up taking in 2019 would not have differed had they known of the financial irregularities in 2014. Subsequently, the claim for factual causation failed as any loss was determined to be inevitable, regardless of when Ickenham discovered the irregularities.

Legal causation concerns whether the type of loss falls within the scope of duty owed by the defendant. The court referenced Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP, discussing the scope of duty based on the purpose of the advice given by the professional. Although the court stated that a loss in company value could conceivably fall within an auditor’s scope of duty if linked to the audit purpose, it was unnecessary to finalize this issue due to the factual findings.

Limitation Period

The claim in tort for the 2014 audit opinion was challenged based on exceeding the limitation period. Ickenham invoked Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980, which allows for a three-year limitation period from the date a claimant had or should have had the necessary knowledge for bringing an action. The court found Ickenham’s claim was timely as their action was brought within three years of gaining knowledge of Tiffin Green’s alleged negligence.


The court ruled in favor of Tiffin Green. It was determined that Ickenham did not suffer any loss from the sale of BTD attributable to Tiffin Green’s auditing failures. Moreover, even if a loss had been suffered, Ickenham did not successfully prove that Tiffin Green caused this loss because the sale of BTD would have likely taken place under similar value-depressing circumstances had the understatement been discovered in 2014.


This case highlights the importance of establishing both a breach of duty and a direct causal link between the breach and the alleged loss. The court meticulously separated the breach of professional duty (which was established) from factual causation (which failed) and considered the scope of duty, limiting its determination to the facts at hand without needing to establish a definitive legal causation argument. Moreover, the application of Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 illustrates the court’s nuanced approach in determining when the clock starts ticking for bringing a claim in tort.

Related Summaries