Khakshouri v Jimenez & Anor [2017] EWHC 3392 (QB) (20 December 2017)

Khakshouri v Jimenez & Anor [2017] EWHC 3392 (QB) (20 December 2017)

The defendants, through the first defendant, made two deceitful representations to the claimant: that they were majority shareholders/controllers of the Club and would ensure the Club was not sold without a Land Deal. These representations were knowingly false and intended to induce the claimant to make a loan. The claimant relied on these representations, suffered loss by withdrawing from a profitable property deal, and is entitled to damages. The first defendant is liable in deceit; the second defendant is vicariously liable for the first claim. The second claim (loan deferment) succeeds against the first defendant only.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3392
Parties
Claimant: Darius Khakshouri; First Defendant: Anthony Jimenez; Second Defendant: Kevin Cash
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (deceit/fraud) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on the first claim against both defendants; judgment for the claimant on the second claim against the first defendant only.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Vicarious Liability, Damages, Shareholder Representation, Property Development, Loan Agreements
Tort Contract Property Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Vicarious Liability Damages Shareholder Representation +2 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darius Khakshouri

Claimant

Anthony Jimenez

First Defendant

Kevin Cash

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (deceit/fraud) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made deceitful representations to induce the claimant to make a loan
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were majority shareholders/controllers of the Club
  3. 3 Whether the sale of the Club was conditioned on a Land Deal

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, through the first defendant, made two deceitful representations to the claimant: that they were majority shareholders/controllers of the Club and would ensure the Club was not sold without a Land Deal. These representations were knowingly false and intended to induce the claimant to make a loan. The claimant relied on these representations, suffered loss by withdrawing from a profitable property deal, and is entitled to damages. The first defendant is liable in deceit; the second defendant is vicariously liable for the first claim. The second claim (loan deferment) succeeds against the first defendant only.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on the first claim against both defendants; judgment for the claimant on the second claim against the first defendant only.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages to the claimant for deceit (first claim)
  • First defendant to pay damages for losses arising from loan deferment (second claim)