Mark Westfield, writing in The Australian on 16 May 1994
stated: The role of the independent expert is crucial to
Australia's investment system. When it falls down,
there can be very dramatic consequences. The scope of these consequences was dramatically
illustrated in the decision of Rogers J. at first instance in
Cambridge Credit Corporation v. Hutcheson (1983) 8
ACLR 123 when the auditors of the failed company were
found liable for breach of contract and faced a damages
award of $145 million, well in excess of their insurance
cover. No comfort should be sought in the fact that this
decision was overturned on appeal, for the result of the
appeal rested on whether there had been a causal
connection between the breach of contract which had
occurred and the loss suffered, rather than on the
fundamental principle of auditors' liability. Thus: Those who prepare experts' reports in company
cases carry a heavy moral responsibility, whatever
their legal duties may be... Unless high standards
are observed by those who prepare these reports,
there is a danger that systems established for the
protection of the investing public will, in fact,
operate to their detriment through reliance placed
on those reports and on the reputations of those who
furnish them. In lending his name, the expert will
often, as in this case, be lending a name to conjure
With.