Applying the illegality defence to corporate claims remains one of the most vexed issues at the interface of the law of obligations and company law. In Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd, the Supreme Court held this defence did not bar a company from suing its bank for negligently failing to stop the company's controlling director from misappropriating funds. While the result is defensible, the decision fails to resolve some important uncertainties: (1) the relationship between the defence and attribution of illegal acts to companies; (2) the role of contributory negligence; (3) the (un)importance of corporate personality; and (4) the future of the illegality defence. This note argues that, while not a panacea, taking a practical, rather than a metaphysical, view of companies is the first step in resolving these difficulties.

中文翻译：

---

告别归因

将非法性抗辩应用于公司债权仍然是义务法和公司法交界处最棘手的问题之一。在Singularis Holdings Ltd诉Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd，最高法院认为，这一抗辩并未阻止公司起诉其银行，因为其疏忽未能阻止公司的控股董事挪用资金。虽然结果可以辩护，但该决定未能解决一些重要的不确定性：（1）辩护与将违法行为归咎于公司之间的关系；(2) 共同过失的作用；(3) 公司人格的（非）重要性；(4) 非法辩护的未来。本说明认为，虽然不是灵丹妙药，但对公司采取实际而非形而上学的观点是解决这些困难的第一步。