header-logo header-logo

Misrepresentation

24 March 2011
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Cassa di Risparmio della Repubblica di San Marino SpA v Barclays Bank Ltd, [2011] EWHC 484 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 189 (Mar)

In order to establish a right to damages under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, it was necessary for the claimant to prove: (a) a representation made by the defendant; (b) which was false; (c) which induced the claimant to enter into the relevant contract; and (d) as a result of which the claimant suffered loss. If those elements were proved, the defendant would have a defence under s 2(1) of the Act if it proved that it had reasonable ground to believe, and did believe, up to the time that contract was made, that the facts represented were true.

The requirements for a claim under the Act were therefore the same as for a claim in the tort of deceit, subject to the important difference that under s 2(1) it was not necessary for the claimant to prove that the misrepresentation had been made fraudulently. Rather, the Act expressly provided that, where the other

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