Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 72 2017 SLD 72 2017 SCMR 24
Supreme Court of UK
Decided on 27th July, 2016. Hearing Date : 16th June, 2016.(On appeal from [2015] EWCA Civ 327)
LORD CLARKE, JSCLORD NEUBERGER (PRESIDENT), LADY HALE (DEPUTY PRESIDENT), LORD REED AND LORD TOULSON, JUSTICES
Patrick Limb QC and Jayne Adams QC (Instructed by DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd) for Appellant.Guy Sims (Instructed by Hewitsons LLP) for
Respondent.

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY plc --AppellantVS.HAYWARD --Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Tort--- ----Deceit---Fraudalent misrepresentation---Claim for deceit based upon an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation---Ingredients--For such a claim it must be shown that the defendant made a materially false representation which was intended to, and did, induce the representee to act to its detriment---As a matter of law, it was not necessary to prove that the representee believed that the representation was true--- However, that was not to say that the representee's state of mind may not be relevant to the issue of inducement; indeed, it may be very relevant e.g. if the representee did not believe that the representation was true, he may have serious difficulty in establishing that lie was induced to enter into the contract or that he had suffered loss as a result. (b) Contract--- ----Deceit, tort of---Fraudulent- misrepresentation---Rescission of a settlement agreement---Claim for deceit based upon alleged misrepresentation-Principles and pre-requisites---Employee claimed damages of about £419,000 against employer for injury at work--- Employer's insurer suspected that defendant was grossly misrepresenting (exaggerating) the extent of his injuries, but nevertheless settled the claim for about £135, 000 as in its opinion there was a real risk that a court would believe the defendant---Insurers subsequently received sufficient proof that defendant had not only exaggerated his injuries, but that he had fully recovered from his injuries by the time of the settlement---Insurer's brought action against the defendant for rescission of settlement agreement and to recover damages on the grounds of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation--- Held, that where an insurer suspects fraud but had nevertheless chosen to settle a claim, it would be entitled to set aside the settlement under the tort of deceit, if it subsequently discovered proof that it was in fact fraudulent---In a claim for deceit based upon alleged misrepresentation it had to be shown that the defendant had made a materially false misrepresentation which had been intended to induce, and had induced, the representee to act to his detriment---As a matter of law it was not necessary to prove that the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register