Ross River Ltd & Anor v Cambridge City Football Club [2008] EWCA Civ 772 (07 May 2008)

Ross River Ltd & Anor v Cambridge City Football Club [2008] EWCA Civ 772 (07 May 2008)

The applications for permission to appeal were dismissed because the judge's findings on fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement were sufficient to support rescission of the overage agreement, and there was no jurisdiction or entitlement as of right to set aside the sale agreement where the improper conduct post-dated the contract. The judge's exercise of discretion in refusing to rescind the sale agreement was not appealable.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 772
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Ross River Limited; Claimant/appellant: Blue River LP; Defendant/appellant: Cambridge City Football Club
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Bribery, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Equitable Relief, Inducement, Remedies
Contract Law Equity Fraud Bribery Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract Equitable Relief Inducement +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ross River Limited

Claimant/appellant

Blue River LP

Claimant/appellant

Cambridge City Football Club

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in setting aside the overage agreement for bribery and fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to set aside the sale agreement
  3. 3 Whether the findings on inducement and causation were sufficient to support rescission for misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to appeal were dismissed because the judge's findings on fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement were sufficient to support rescission of the overage agreement, and there was no jurisdiction or entitlement as of right to set aside the sale agreement where the improper conduct post-dated the contract. The judge's exercise of discretion in refusing to rescind the sale agreement was not appealable.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused to both claimants and defendant