Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2004] All ER (D) 244 (Jul)
Neutral Citation: [2004] EWHC 1694 (QB)
Court: Queen's Bench Division
Judge:

Moses J
Representation John de Waal (instructed by Reed Smith) for the claimant.
  Paul Emerson (instructed by Moore & Blatch) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 14 July 2004

Catchwords

Misrepresentation - Fraudulent misrepresentation - Negligent misrepresentation - Lease of premises - Pre-contractual enquiries - Dry rot - Answer that no dry rot carrying implication that vendor made such investigation as could reasonably be expected of it.

The Case

In the circumstances of the case, the defendant's written reply to the pre-contractual enquiries in connection with a lease contained a fraudulent misrepresentation and carried with it a negligent misrepresentation that reasonable steps had been taken to ascertain whether dry rot existed. That misrepresentation was not corrected by the defendant's subsequent disclosure that the staircase had been replaced due to dry rot, since that statement carried with it a further implication that in replacing the staircase the defendant had taken reasonable steps to see that the replacement had cured the dry rot.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary