Drouzhba v Wiseman & Anor

Drouzhba v Wiseman & Anor

The First Defendant, knowing Scott Daniel Limited was insolvent and unable to pay, procured and made representations as to the company’s credit to induce the Claimant to supply goods on credit. These representations were deceitful, and the Claimant relied on them to its detriment. The acts went beyond mere constitutional control, rendering the First Defendant personally liable as a joint tortfeasor. The requirements of Lord Tenterden’s Act were satisfied by the signed agreements and correspondence. The Claimant is entitled to judgment for the principal sum, less credit for unsold suits and fabric.

Parties
Claimant: Contex Drouzhba; First Defendant: Ronald Wiseman; Second Defendant: Lucci Del Marco Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the First Defendant.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Misrepresentation, Director's Liability, Joint Tortfeasorship, Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828
Commercial Law Tort Law Company Law Deceit Misrepresentation Director's Liability Joint Tortfeasorship Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Contex Drouzhba

Claimant

Ronald Wiseman

First Defendant

Lucci Del Marco Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant, as director, is personally liable in deceit for representations as to the company's credit and procurement of company acts
  2. 2 Whether the Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 (Lord Tenterden’s Act) bars the claim
  3. 3 Whether the representations were signed as required by law

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant, knowing Scott Daniel Limited was insolvent and unable to pay, procured and made representations as to the company’s credit to induce the Claimant to supply goods on credit. These representations were deceitful, and the Claimant relied on them to its detriment. The acts went beyond mere constitutional control, rendering the First Defendant personally liable as a joint tortfeasor. The requirements of Lord Tenterden’s Act were satisfied by the signed agreements and correspondence. The Claimant is entitled to judgment for the principal sum, less credit for unsold suits and fabric.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the First Defendant.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded principal sum of £172,964.28 against the First Defendant.
  • Quantum reduced by £72,500 for unsold suits and £40,000 for fabric.