Peekay Intermark Ltd and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd: ComC 25 May 2005

The claimant alleged mis-selling of an emerging markets investment product. The defendant claimed that whilst there might have been a misrepresentation, by the time the contract was formed, correct information had been provided and incorporated in the contract.
Held: The later correction did not correct the earlier misrepresentation. The claimant’s agent had signed every page of the contract, but given the representations made, it was likely that the claimant had only given cursory examination to the document before signing it.
Richard Siberry QC
[2005] EWHC 830 (Comm), Times 10-Jun-2005
Misrepresentation Act 1967 291)
England and Wales
CitedArinson v Smith CA 1888
The court asked whether a misrepresentation in a prospectus was corrected by a circular issued after shares had been allotted to investors who had relied on the prospectus.
Held: It was not, and that what would have been required was a clear . .
DoubtedRoyscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 1991
Doyle -v- Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd was an appropriate way of assessing damages for an action under the Act, and damages are calculated on the basis of fraud.
A client misled into an investment is entitled to the measure of damages he would . .
CitedLloyds Bank PLC v Waterhouse CA 1993
The plaintiff bank claimed against the defendant under an ‘all monies’ guarantee, to which the defendant raised defences of misrepresentation, non est factum, and negligence or breach of duty by the bank.
Held: The court explored the . .
CitedSaunders (Executrix of the Will of Rose Maude Gallie, Deceased) v Anglia Building Society HL 9-Nov-1970
The Appellant had signed an assignment of her lease in favour of her nephew. She said she thought the effect of it would protect her right to continue to live in the house. She now appealed rejection of her plea of non est factum.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromPeekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd CA 6-Apr-2006
Moore-Bick LJ discussed whether the court should give effect to a non-reliance clause in a contract saying: ‘It is common to include in certain kinds of contracts an express acknowledgement by each of the parties that they have not been induced to . .
CitedWickens v Cheval Property Developments Ltd ChD 8-Sep-2010
The buyer of land sought a reduction in the purchase price complaining of the removal of several items (worth possibly andpound;300,000) by intruders after exchange. The seller said that the fixtures had been excluded under the contract.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 January 2021; Ref: scu.226011