London Borough of Haringey v Hines: CA 20 Oct 2010

The authority sought rescission of a lease granted to the defendant under the right to buy scheme, saying that she had misrepresented her occupation when applying. The tenant replied that no adequate evidence had been brought that she was not a secure tenant. The authority had set out several statements as to her occupation by her of a different property. It also argued that the grant had been void as ultra vires.
Held: The statements did not amount to a deceit in the way found, containing no direct assertion of the untruth claimed, and nor had the allegation been put to the appellant directly in cross examination. Mrs Hines’ appeal against the award of damages for deceit succeeded. The court below had declined toorder any rectification, and therefore associated claims as to the grant being ultra vires had no purpose. Any potential claim for innocent misrepresentation had not been pleaded or pursued at trial. The council had pushed singularly for fraudulent misrepresentation, and it was not now right to ask what migfht have happened if the trial had been conducted differently.

Pill, Rimer LJJ, Peter Smith J
[2010] EWCA Civ 1111
Housing Act 1985 118, Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1)
England and Wales
CitedLondon Borough of Sutton v Swann 30-Nov-1985
The defendant had applied to buy his council property, but lost his secure tenancy before completion of the purchase.
Held: He had lost the right to buy the property. . .
CitedMuir Group Housing Association Ltd v Thornley and Another CA 25-Nov-1992
The tenant’s right to buy the property held under a secure tenancy was lost when, even after the start of the procedure for purchase, the Tenant had let out the house to another, and so ceased to be a secure tenant. . .
CitedMary Rushton, Michael Rushton v Worcester City Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The claimants had purchased the first tenant’s council property under the right to buy scheme. The council had failed to disclose facts about its condition which rendered it valueless, but now appealed against the award of damages for . .
CitedAbbey Forwarding Ltd v Hone and Others ChD 30-Jul-2010
. .
CitedVogon International Ltd v Serious Fraud Office CA 4-Feb-2004
The defendant appealed a finding in which the judge had inferred against it serious imputations where neither party had made such an allegation, and the defendant had not been given forewarning of such a finding.
Held: The judge had correctly . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Dempster (T/A Boulevard) ChD 24-Jan-2008
The revenue wished to refuse a claim to set off input tax for two transactions involving the alleged purchase of software. They said the transactions were a sham.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed.
Briggs J said: ‘the critical question . .
CitedDoyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd CA 31-Jan-1969
The plaintiff had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation of the defendant to buy an ironmonger’s business for 4,500 pounds plus stock at a valuation of 5,000 pounds. Shortly after the purchase, he discovered the fraud and started the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.425354