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 misrepresentation. It had failed to disclose the fact and significance of the use of High Alumina Cement in its construction.
Judges:
Potter, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 367, [2001] NPC 65, [2002] HLR 9, [2003] RVR 129, [2001] 13 EGCS
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Rushton and Another v Worcester City Council CA 22-May-2001
Application to correct mathematical errors in the main judgment. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135535