Fowler v Commission For New Towns [2001] EWCA Civ 1027 (22 June 2001)

Fowler v Commission For New Towns [2001] EWCA Civ 1027 (22 June 2001)

Mr Fowler's claim failed because he was an expert in marina development, MDC was entitled to assume he would make his own commercial judgment, there was no voluntary assumption of responsibility by MDC, and the representations were forecasts or publicity not intended to be contractually binding. There was no evidence of misstatement of fact or negligent misstatement, and causation was not established between MDC's conduct and Mr Fowler's losses.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1027
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Roger Owen Fowler; Defendant/respondent: Commission for the New Towns
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Collateral Warranty, Misrepresentation, Negligent Misstatement, Causation, Reliance, Legitimate Expectation
Contract Law Tort Law Collateral Warranty Misrepresentation Negligent Misstatement Causation Reliance Legitimate Expectation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Owen Fowler

Claimant/applicant

Commission for the New Towns

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MDC made actionable misrepresentations or collateral warranties to Mr Fowler
  2. 2 Whether Mr Fowler relied on MDC's representations
  3. 3 Whether MDC owed a duty of care or assumed responsibility for Mr Fowler's losses

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Fowler's claim failed because he was an expert in marina development, MDC was entitled to assume he would make his own commercial judgment, there was no voluntary assumption of responsibility by MDC, and the representations were forecasts or publicity not intended to be contractually binding. There was no evidence of misstatement of fact or negligent misstatement, and causation was not established between MDC's conduct and Mr Fowler's losses.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused