Michael Anthony Tuke v Derek Hood

Credit for the notional 'time value' of money received by the victim of fraud is not to be given to the fraudster in the computation of damages for deceit or loss of investment opportunity. Such credit is contrary to principle and policy, would under-compensate the victim, and would incentivise fraudsters to conceal their wrongdoing.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Michael Anthony Tuke; Defendant/appellant: Derek Hood
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 January 2022
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Deceit, Damages for Fraud, Loss of Investment Opportunity, Credit for Time Value of Money, Consequential Loss

Tort Fraud Damages Deceit Damages for Fraud Loss of Investment Opportunity Credit for Time Value of Money Consequential Loss

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Michael Anthony Tuke

Claimant/respondent

Derek Hood

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether, in the computation of damages for deceit, the victim must give credit to the fraudster for the 'time value' of money received in a fraudulently induced sale transaction.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Appeal dismissed; no credit to be given for the time value of money received by the victim in the computation of damages for deceit.