‘A senior police officer has been sacked and could face a jail sentence after she was caught scamming high street stores out of hundreds of pounds. Tanya Brookes was a chief inspector at Surrey Police when she committed “an extensive range of petty frauds” against household names including The White Company and Boots.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th March 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (Earl of Seafield) and others [2014] UKSC 9; [2014] WLR (D) 64
‘A contracting party could be liable in negligence for a representation made in pre-contractual negotiations which induced the conclusion of the contract by someone other than the original representee.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 12th February 2014
‘Pleading fraud is not to be done lightly, and there can be significant adverse consequences of doing so inappropriately. Equally, however, failing to plead fraud where appropriate can deprive a party to litigation of the opportunity to succeed on a point which might be decisive in that party’s favour, and successfully alleging fraud can have very beneficial consequences in terms of liability, remedy and enforcement. This article is intended to provide a brief overview of factors that should be weighed when deciding whether to plead fraud in any given (civil) claim.’
Barristers’ Hub, 31st January 2014
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
‘It was third time unlucky for a solicitor whose striking-off had twice been overturned by the High Court, as Mr Justice Mostyn yesterday rejected his challenge to the latest decision to remove him from the roll.’
Legal Futures, 21st November 2013
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
“We have seen Santander having trouble in mortgage possession proceedings in Northern Ireland recently. Here is another example which could perhaps, indeed maybe should, have been avoided, if the lender had actually taken proceedings sufficiently seriously.”
NearlyLegal, 11th October 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“A driving theory test advert that claimed a charge of £31 but levied nearly £50 has been banned. It follows a move to block adverts from websites that charge for the traveller EHIC card, which is free from the NHS.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Mr. Justice Birss summarized the issues in Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) and Another [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 310 admirably in paragraph [1] of his judgment in that case: ‘Topshop is a well known fashion retailer. Rihanna is a famous pop star. In March 2012 Topshop started selling a t-shirt with an image of Rihanna on it. The image was a photograph taken by an independent photographer. Topshop had a licence from the photographer but no licence from Rihanna. Rihanna contends that the sale of this t-shirt without her permission infringes her rights. Topshop does not agree. This action is the result.’ ”
NIPC Law, 10th September 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“Pop singer Rihanna has won a legal battle with clothing retailer Topshop over a T-shirt bearing her image.”
BBC News, 31st July 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Last year I discussed Mr Justice Flaux’s decision in Graiseley Properties Limited and others v Barclays Bank plc [2012] EWHC 3093 (Comm) (see Littleton Comment on 4 December 2012). In that case Flaux J. had allowed amendments to plead fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of implied terms in relation to LIBOR which smoothed the path to claims which were, in essence, that the Bank had sold LIBOR-related products when it knew that its employees were attempting to ‘rig’ LIBOR rates for their own purposes (i.e. making their trades profitable) and that such conduct would disadvantage clients who relied on the Bank not attempting to manipulate LIBOR rates. Although I pointed out that allowing the amendments, which lacked the particularity to be expected, was unusual, I also observed that ‘This is a welcome and realistic approach to the difficulties faced by customers in claims against banks.'”
Littleton Chambers, 15th April 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
“Gordon Brown’s complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over a Sunday Times story about the more than £2m in fees and expenses received since he stepped down as prime minister has been rejected.”
The Guardian, 4th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others [2013] UKSC 5; [2013] WLR (D) 41
“Where a claimant alleged that it had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of a third party to enter a contract with a company, and sought to make a contractual claim against the third party as being jointly and severally liable with the company, it was not appropriate for the court to pierce the corporate veil, even if it could do so on appropriate facts, since to do so would render the third party liable as if he had been a co-contracting party with the company when he had not, and when none of the contracting parties, including the claimant, had intended that he should be.”
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 6th February 2013
“The Government’s decision to repeal a law designed for regulating property sales and rely on general consumer protection legislation instead will expose housebuilders to new risks and increase their costs at a time when they can scarcely afford it.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Search warrants issued to the Serious Fraud Office as part of its investigations of property tycoons the Tchenguiz brothers were unlawful and obtained by ‘misrepresentation’, the High Court has ruled.”
BBC News, 31st July 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A major UK internet service provider’s (ISP’s) claim that it could offer a ‘totally unlimited broadband’ service to customers was not misleading, despite the fact the service would contain ‘inherent limitations’, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd July 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
Green v Eadie and others [2011] WLR (D) 335
“Sections 2 and 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 both applied to a claim brought under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and such a claim was therefore, by virtue of section 8(2) of the Limitation Act 1980, not within the ambit of section 8(1) of that Act. The applicable limitation period was therefore six years. Where a person entered into a flawed transaction which might have been capable of being remedied by rescission, loss was first suffered and the cause of action therefore accrued when the person entered into the flawed transaction.”
WLR Daily, 18th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“It has long been established that at common law a person cannot avoid liability for fraudulent statements by inserting a clause in the contract that the other party is not to rely upon them: S Pearson & Son Ltd v Dublin Corpn [1907] AC 351. However, fraudulent or reckless mis-representations are notoriously difficult to prove, not least because, although the civil standard of proof applies, cogent evidence will be required to establish the ‘misdemeanour’. And, of course, the relevant knowledge and/or documentation needed to satisfy the Court are likely to be within the representor’s control.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 30th September 2011
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023