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 false representations regarding their status as majority shareholders/controllers and their intention to condition the sale of the Club upon a Land Deal. These representations were knowingly untrue and intended to induce the claimant to make the loan. The claimant relied on these representations, suffered loss by relinquishing a profitable stake in the LA Deal, and is entitled to damages for deceit. The second defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant's deceit. The second claim for deferment of loan repayment succeeds against the first defendant but not the second.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3392 (QB)
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, Reliance, Shareholder Representation
Tort Law Contract Law Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Vicarious Liability Damages Reliance Shareholder Representation

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 defendants intended to condition the sale of the Club upon a Land Deal

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, through the first defendant, made false representations regarding their status as majority shareholders/controllers and their intention to condition the sale of the Club upon a Land Deal. These representations were knowingly untrue and intended to induce the claimant to make the loan. The claimant relied on these representations, suffered loss by relinquishing a profitable stake in the LA Deal, and is entitled to damages for deceit. The second defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant's deceit. The second claim for deferment of loan repayment succeeds against the first defendant but not the second.

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 relating to the loan and loss of LA Deal profits.
  • First defendant to pay damages for forex losses arising from deferment of loan repayment.