Q&As

Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 allows a claimant to claim damages for non-fraudulent misrepresentation, unless the representor can prove they had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true. If the representor had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true, would this mean that the misrepresentation was made innocently? In what circumstances could a claimant claim damages for negligent misrepresentation?

read titleRead full title

Produced in partnership with Niranjan Venkatesan of One Essex Court Chambers
Published on: 11 October 2019
imgtext

What is a claim for Misrepresentation?

A claim for misrepresentation arises where one party to a contract (the representor) made an untrue statement that induced the other party (the representee) to enter into the contract.

What are the types of misrepresentation?

The untrue statement may have been made:

  1. •

    fraudulently

  2. •

    negligently

  3. •

    innocently

For further guidance on the different types of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—falsity (fraudulent, innocent or negligent misrepresentation).

What remedies are available for actionable misrepresentations?

Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967) is concerned with the availability of Damages as a remedy in misrepresentation claims. It provides

Niranjan Venkatesan
Niranjan Venkatesan

One Essex Court Chambers

Niranjan has a broad commercial practice. In recent years, he has acted (on numerous occasions) in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and has also been involved in complex, high-value litigation in the High Court and in international arbitration. Before coming to the Bar, he read and taught law at Oxford where he was a Vinerian, Eldon and Rhodes scholar.

Current or recent cases include: Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA [2018] 1 WLR 3683 (Supreme Court); Tiuta v De Villiers [2017] 1 WLR 4627 (Supreme Court); Arcadia Petroleum v Bosworth [2019] IL Pr 22 (Supreme Court and CJEU); BAT Industries plc v Sequana [2019] EWCA Civ 112 (Court of Appeal, 5-day hearing); Société Générale v Goldas [2019] 1 WLR 346 (Court of Appeal); for the successful respondent in a c. $2 billion LCIA arbitration; for one of the defendants in a c. $1 billion Commercial Court claim arising out of the development of an oilfield in Nigeria; for the defendant in the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal following a successful jurisdiction challenge to a claim worth c. $1 billion; the Tesco shareholders' litigation in the Financial List.

He is also called to the Indian Bar (non-practising) and is able to advise on matters of Indian law.

Read moreRead more
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related legal acts:
Key definition:
Misrepresentation definition
What does Misrepresentation mean?

A misrepresentation is a pre-contractual false statement of fact or law made by one party to a contract (or his agent) to the other that induced that party to enter into the contract.

Read more

Popular documents

Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim

Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claimThis Practice Note outlines the key elements for establishing a claim in negligence. For specific guidance on negligence in the context of company/parent company liability, banks and in professional negligence cases, see:•Practice Note: Tortious

Rescission of a contract

Rescission of a contractThis Practice Note considers the remedy of rescission, summarising when and how a contract may be rescinded (at common law, equity and under statute) and thereby brought to an end. It includes the effect of rescission, the main grounds for rescinding a contract

The doctrine of res judicata

The doctrine of res judicataWhat is a res judicata?A res judicata is a decision given by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of a matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on

Void contracts

Void contractsThis Practice Note summarises the circumstances in which a contract may be declared void and the consequences when that happens. It distinguishes between void, voidable and unenforceable contracts and considers when a contract may be void due to: common mistake, unilateral mistake as