Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others: ChD 10 Apr 2008

Warren J said: ‘As to that, the judge directed himself in law . . as follows: ‘it is a question of fact whether a representee has been induced to enter into a transaction by a material misrepresentation intended by the representor to be relied upon by the representee; if the misrepresentation is of such a nature that it would be likely to play a part in the decision of a reasonable person to enter into a transaction it will be presumed that it did so unless the representor satisfies the court to the contrary (see Morritt LJ in Barton v County NatWest Limited [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Banking 408 at 421, paragraph 58); (3) the misrepresentation does not have to be the sole inducement for the representee to be able to rely on it: it is enough if the misrepresentation plays a real and substantial part, albeit not a decisive part, in inducing the representee to act; (4) the presumption of inducement is rebutted by the representor showing that the misrepresentation did not play a real and substantial part in the representee’s decision to enter into the transaction; the representor does not have to go so far as to show that the misrepresentation played no part at all; and (5) the issue is to be decided by the court on a balance of probabilities on the whole of the evidence before it.’


Warren J


[2008] EWHC 723 (Ch)




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLindsay v O’Loughnane QBD 18-Mar-2010
The claimant had purchased Euros through a foreign exchange dealer. The dealer company became insolvent, causing losses to the claimant, who sought to recover from the company’s managing director, the defendant, saying that he was aware of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266903