Renault UK Ltd v Fleetpro Technical Services Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 2541 (QB) (13 November 2007)

Renault UK Ltd v Fleetpro Technical Services Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 2541 (QB) (13 November 2007)

The defendants, by marking orders with the BALPA FON and representing that purchasers were entitled to affinity discounts, made fraudulent misrepresentations which induced the claimant to pay fleet support payments it would not otherwise have paid. The evidence did not support the defence that the claimant's employees authorised or acquiesced in the misuse. The first defendant is liable in deceit; the second defendant, as the directing mind and will of the first defendant, is also personally liable. The claimant is entitled to recover the fleet support payments made in respect of non-BALPA purchasers.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2541 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Renault UK Limited; First Defendant: FleetPro Technical Services Limited; Second Defendant: Russell Thoms
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (fraudulent Misrepresentation/deceit) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Agency, Damages, Affinity Schemes, Automotive Industry
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Agency Damages Affinity Schemes +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renault UK Limited

Claimant

FleetPro Technical Services Limited

First Defendant

Russell Thoms

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (fraudulent Misrepresentation/deceit) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the claimant to pay fleet support payments under the BALPA Scheme for non-qualifying purchasers
  2. 2 Whether the claimant suffered loss as a result of the misrepresentations
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages or an account of profits

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, by marking orders with the BALPA FON and representing that purchasers were entitled to affinity discounts, made fraudulent misrepresentations which induced the claimant to pay fleet support payments it would not otherwise have paid. The evidence did not support the defence that the claimant's employees authorised or acquiesced in the misuse. The first defendant is liable in deceit; the second defendant, as the directing mind and will of the first defendant, is also personally liable. The claimant is entitled to recover the fleet support payments made in respect of non-BALPA purchasers.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against both defendants for damages in the sum of £695,655.80
  • Claim for an account of profits dismissed