Banks & Anor v Cox & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 5565 (17 July 2000)

Banks & Anor v Cox & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 5565 (17 July 2000)

The evidence of Mr Blunt, if admitted, could have an important influence on the outcome, as it could justify findings that Mrs Cox was aware of the Hobbs letter and its implications, potentially making the answer to pre-contract inquiry No. 20 a misrepresentation. The Banks exercised reasonable diligence in seeking the evidence. The principles in Ladd v Marshall are satisfied. The findings of the trial judge are unsafe in light of the new evidence. A retrial is necessary to ensure justice.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 5565
Parties
Appellants/claimants: Mr and Mrs Banks; Respondents/defendants: Mr and Mrs Cox; Defendant (no Longer Concerned): Third Defendant (firm of solicitors)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (misrepresentation, Negligence) / Appeal From High Court Judgment, Application to Admit Fresh Evidence, Order for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Reckless Misrepresentation, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Principles for Retrial, Causation in Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure Rules
Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Reckless Misrepresentation Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Principles for Retrial +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Banks

Appellants/claimants

Mr and Mrs Cox

Respondents/defendants

Third Defendant (firm of solicitors)

Defendant (no Longer Concerned)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (misrepresentation, Negligence) / Appeal From High Court Judgment, Application to Admit Fresh Evidence, Order for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence (statements of Mr Blunt, Mr Bishop, Mrs Banks) should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the original trial judge erred in dismissing the claim for misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the answer to pre-contract inquiry No. 20 was a misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Mr Blunt, if admitted, could have an important influence on the outcome, as it could justify findings that Mrs Cox was aware of the Hobbs letter and its implications, potentially making the answer to pre-contract inquiry No. 20 a misrepresentation. The Banks exercised reasonable diligence in seeking the evidence. The principles in Ladd v Marshall are satisfied. The findings of the trial judge are unsafe in light of the new evidence. A retrial is necessary to ensure justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Evidence of Mr Blunt, Mr Bishop, and Mrs Banks admitted
  • New trial to be conducted by another judge of the Chancery Division