Cheshire Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd & Ors

Cheshire Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd & Ors

The cumulative evidence, including the scale of overvaluation, repeated false representations, failure to address obvious discrepancies, and lack of credible explanation, leads only to the conclusion that McGarry (and thus DHL) acted dishonestly. There is no real prospect of a defence to the claim in deceit. Summary judgment is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: The Cheshire Building Society; First Defendant / Claimant (in 1451): Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd (T/A Dunlop Heywood Lorenz); Second Defendant: Cobbetts; Defendant (in 1451): Ian McGarry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for CBS against DHL and for DHL against McGarry on claims in deceit. Damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraud, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Summary Judgment
Tort Commercial Law Deceit Fraud Negligence Breach of Contract Summary Judgment

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

Parties

The Cheshire Building Society

Claimant

Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd (T/A Dunlop Heywood Lorenz)

First Defendant / Claimant (in 1451)

Cobbetts

Second Defendant

Ian McGarry

Defendant (in 1451)

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the valuer (McGarry/DHL) acted fraudulently in providing inflated property valuations to CBS
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment is appropriate in a claim of deceit/fraud
  3. 3 Whether there is any real prospect of a defence to the claim in deceit

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative evidence, including the scale of overvaluation, repeated false representations, failure to address obvious discrepancies, and lack of credible explanation, leads only to the conclusion that McGarry (and thus DHL) acted dishonestly. There is no real prospect of a defence to the claim in deceit. Summary judgment is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for CBS against DHL and for DHL against McGarry on claims in deceit. Damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Interim payment of £10,000,000 to CBS.