Ross River Ltd and Another v Cambridge City Football Club Ltd: ChD 19 Sep 2007

The club sought to rescind agreements for leasing its ground, saying that the developers had made a secret payment to its chairman.
Briggs J said: ‘First and foremost, in a case where fraudulent material misrepresentations have been deliberately made with a view (as I find) improperly to influence the outcome of the negotiation of the contract in favour of the maker and his principal, by an experienced player in the relevant market, there is the most powerful inference that the fraudsman achieved his objective, at least to the limited extent required by the law, namely that his fraud was actively in the mind of the recipient when the contract came to be mad

Briggs J
[2007] EWHC 2115 (Ch), [2008] 1 All ER 1004, 117 Con LR 129, [2007] 41 EG 201, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 1028
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRoss River Ltd and Another v Cambridge City Football Club CA 7-May-2008
Both parties renewed their applications for leave to appeal. . .
CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.259430