header-logo header-logo

Misrepresentation

16 September 2010
Issue: 7433 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Belfairs Management Ltd v Sutherland and another [2010] EWHC (Ch) 2276, [2010] All ER (D) 59 (Sep)

To make good a case in deceit, the evidence had to establish that the first defendant had made a statement of fact; that he knew the statement to be false (or had no belief in its truth) or that he was reckless as to its truth or falsity; that the claimant was intended to rely on it; that the claimant had relied on it; and by reason of that reliance the claimant had suffered loss.

A statement of fact once made was likely to have a continuing effect—until the transaction was completed, or until the form of the transaction was changed so that the statement ceased to be material, or until some other event occurred which meant that the statement ceased to be operative on the mind of the hearer. Because of that continuing effect a statement that was true when made could be rendered false by a change in circumstances. If the maker of the statement came to know of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll