Khakshouri v Jimenez & Anor

Khakshouri v Jimenez & Anor

The first defendant made two deceitful representations to the claimant: that he and the second defendant were majority shareholders/controllers of the Club, and that they 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, which he did in reliance, suffering loss by diluting his interest in the LA Deal. The second defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant's deceit, having given actual authority. Damages are assessed by reference to the lost profits from the LA Deal at completion, not at the date of loan repayment, as the claimant was locked out of the deal and could not...

Parties
Claimant: Darius Khakshouri; First Defendant: Anthony Jimenez; Second Defendant: Kevin Cash
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Vicarious Liability, Damages, Mitigation, Agency
Tort Contract Property Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Vicarious Liability Damages Mitigation +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darius Khakshouri

Claimant

Anthony Jimenez

First Defendant

Kevin Cash

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

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 ensure the Club would not be sold without a Land Deal

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant made two deceitful representations to the claimant: that he and the second defendant were majority shareholders/controllers of the Club, and that they 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, which he did in reliance, suffering loss by diluting his interest in the LA Deal. The second defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant's deceit, having given actual authority. Damages are assessed by reference to the lost profits from the LA Deal at completion, not at the date of loan repayment, as the claimant was locked out of the deal and could not...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • First and Second Defendants liable to the Claimant for deceit on the First Claim
  • First Defendant liable to the Claimant for deceit on the Second Claim