The applicant appealed an order setting aside transfers to him of shares in a family company, found to have been made after misrepresentation and a breach of fiduciary duty. Three companies owned by the family had fallen into difficulties, and the shares were transferred for nominal consideration, on the basis of representations made as to the liabilities of the company, and as to their later return. Later the company prospered, and they sought the return of their shares.
Held: The appeal was as to matters of fact. The judgment did not set out clearly the facts found on the issues now tested, but there was evidence upon which his findings could properly be based. There had been misrepresentation by the defendant. The measure of damages for a tortious misrepresentation is the sum necessary to put the claimant in the position he would have been in, if the misrepresentation had not been made. The judge should not have assessed damages on a partial realisation basis without discounting the assets for the value of the directors service contracts, which would have been costs in the realisation of the assets.
Judges:
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Chadwick And Lord Justice Latham
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Civ 322
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Platt v Platt and Another ChD 19-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – Attorney General of Ceylon v Mackie PC 1952
The House considered how to value a company. The possibility that a business might be sold as a going concern for a price equal to the net realisable value of the assets employed was envisaged: ‘If it is proved in a particular case that at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Damages, Torts – Other
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147355
