Morris v Jones & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1790 (06 December 2002)

Morris v Jones & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1790 (06 December 2002)

The claimant was entitled to damages for deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation as the false reply to Enquiry No. 17 was material and induced the contract. However, the assessment of damages was flawed due to insufficient evidence, requiring an inquiry. The claimant was properly ordered to pay the defendants' costs for the abandoned Defective Premises Act claim, and no estoppel by deed prevented this.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1790
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Dr. Stephen Morris; Respondent/second Defendant: Mr Thomas McCormack; Respondent/third Defendant: Estate of Mrs Valerie McCormack; Respondent/fourth Defendant: Stephen McCormack
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Technology and Construction Court, Cardiff
Outcome
Appeal on liability dismissed; appeal on damages allowed; inquiry into damages ordered; costs orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Damages Assessment, Defective Premises Act 1972, Estoppel, Costs
Property Law Tort Law Contract Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Damages Assessment Defective Premises Act 1972 Estoppel +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Stephen Morris

Appellant/claimant

Mr Thomas McCormack

Respondent/second Defendant

Estate of Mrs Valerie McCormack

Respondent/third Defendant

Stephen McCormack

Respondent/fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Technology and Construction Court, Cardiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant relied on a fraudulent misrepresentation in purchasing the property
  2. 2 Whether the misrepresentation was material and induced the contract
  3. 3 Proper assessment of damages for misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was entitled to damages for deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation as the false reply to Enquiry No. 17 was material and induced the contract. However, the assessment of damages was flawed due to insufficient evidence, requiring an inquiry. The claimant was properly ordered to pay the defendants' costs for the abandoned Defective Premises Act claim, and no estoppel by deed prevented this.

Court Disposition

Appeal on liability dismissed; appeal on damages allowed; inquiry into damages ordered; costs orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Inquiry into damages to be conducted by the trial judge, including consequential losses and loss of enjoyment.
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs of the abandoned Defective Premises Act claim.