Peekay 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 enter the contract by any representations other than those contained in the contract itself. The effectiveness of a clause of that kind may be challenged on the grounds that the contract as a whole, including the clause in question, can be avoided if in fact one or other party was induced to enter into it by misrepresentation. However, I can see no reason in principle why it should not be possible for parties to reach an agreement to give up any right to assert that they were induced to enter into it by misrepresentation, provided that they make their intentions clear, or why a clause of that kind, if properly drafted, should not give rise to a contractual estoppel of the kind recognised in Colchester Borough Council v Smith. However, that particular question does not arise in this case. A clause of that kind may (depending on its terms) also be capable of giving rise to an estoppel by representation if the necessary elements can be established: see E A Grimstead and Son v McGarrigan (CA) 27 October 1999, unreported.’
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Moore-Bick
[2006] EWCA Civ 386, [2006] 2 Lloyds Rep 511, [2006] 1 CLC 582
Bailii
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromPeekay 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 . .
CitedE A Grimstead and Son Ltd v McGarrigan CA 27-Oct-1999
The court considered the effect of an acknowledgement of non-reliance clause: ‘There are, as it seems to me, at least two good reasons why the courts should not refuse to give effect to an acknowledgement of non-reliance in a commercial contract . .

Cited by:
CitedAhmed v Landstone Leisure Ltd ChD 30-Jan-2009
The claimant appealed against a refusal to set aside a statutory demand. He had given a cheque at a land auction, and it had bounced on his instructions, saying that the property had been misrepresented.
Held: The auctioneer had specifically . .
CitedAhmed v Landstone Leisure Ltd ChD 30-Jan-2009
The claimant appealed against a refusal to set aside a statutory demand. He had given a cheque at a land auction, and it had bounced on his instructions, saying that the property had been misrepresented.
Held: The auctioneer had specifically . .
CitedMorgan and Another v Pooley and Another QBD 7-Oct-2010
morgan_pooleyQBD10
The claimants had bought a property from the defendants and now sought damages in misrepresentation saying that the defendants had failed to disclose a planning application for an adjacent farm as regards a track bordering the property.
Held: . .
CitedAJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
An insurance company had engaged a main contractor to handle repairs to houses insured under its policies. The contractor had engaged the claimant subcontractor to carry out the works at the defendants’ homes, but then went into insolvent . .
CitedWright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.240107