MacDonald & Anor v Polaine & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 678 (29 April 2002)

MacDonald & Anor v Polaine & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 678 (29 April 2002)

The defendants conspired to commit deceit by knowingly participating in and failing to correct misrepresentations regarding the sale of company shares, causing loss to the claimants; the claimants were not estopped from bringing the claim as they were not aware of the true facts; the damages awarded were justified on the available evidence.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 678
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Hamish Benedict Macdonald; Claimant/respondent: Alexandra Ruth Macdonald; Defendant/applicant: Guy Polaine; Defendant/applicant: Hill Publishing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed, Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deceit, Conspiracy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misrepresentation, Damages, Estoppel
Civil Law Company Law Tort Law Deceit Conspiracy Breach of Fiduciary Duty Misrepresentation Damages +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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamish Benedict Macdonald

Claimant/respondent

Alexandra Ruth Macdonald

Claimant/respondent

Guy Polaine

Defendant/applicant

Hill Publishing Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed, Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants conspired to commit deceit against the claimants in the sale of company shares
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were estopped from bringing the claim due to their knowledge or conduct
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded were justified based on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants conspired to commit deceit by knowingly participating in and failing to correct misrepresentations regarding the sale of company shares, causing loss to the claimants; the claimants were not estopped from bringing the claim as they were not aware of the true facts; the damages awarded were justified on the available evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No order as to costs specified in the judgment