header-logo header-logo

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

Misrepresentation

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 requirements of the tort of deceit were met, the person

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll