Butler- Creagh v AIDA Hersham [2011] EWHC 2525 (QB) (06 October 2011)

Butler- Creagh v AIDA Hersham [2011] EWHC 2525 (QB) (06 October 2011)

No oral agreement for a £5m fee was concluded between Butler-Creagh and Hersham; Butler-Creagh's evidence was not credible and the alleged agreement lacked consideration and plausibility. Cherrilow Limited was induced to purchase Fawley Court by Butler-Creagh's fraudulent misrepresentations, but Butler-Creagh failed to establish any entitlement to quantum meruit or restitution. The claims by Butler-Creagh are dismissed; Cherrilow is entitled to a declaration of non-liability and damages for deceit.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2525 (QB)
Parties
Claimant (hq10 X01793) / Defendant (hq11 X01414): Richard Butler-Creagh; Defendant (hq10 X01793): Aida Hersham; Claimant (hq11 X01414): Cherrilow Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims by Butler-Creagh dismissed; Cherrilow's claim for deceit succeeds; declaration of non-liability to Butler-Creagh granted.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment, Quantum Meruit, Oral Contracts, Deceit, Agency, Charities Act Compliance
Contract Law Tort Law Equity Property Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Unjust Enrichment Quantum Meruit Oral Contracts +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Butler-Creagh

Claimant (hq10 X01793) / Defendant (hq11 X01414)

Aida Hersham

Defendant (hq10 X01793)

Cherrilow Limited

Claimant (hq11 X01414)

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement was concluded between Richard Butler-Creagh and Aida Hersham for a £5m fee; Whether Cherrilow Limited was induced to purchase Fawley Court by fraudulent misrepresentations by Richard Butler-Creagh; Whether Butler-Creagh is entitled to a quantum meruit or restitution from Cherrilow Limited; Whether Butler-Creagh's conduct amounted to deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi

No oral agreement for a £5m fee was concluded between Butler-Creagh and Hersham; Butler-Creagh's evidence was not credible and the alleged agreement lacked consideration and plausibility. Cherrilow Limited was induced to purchase Fawley Court by Butler-Creagh's fraudulent misrepresentations, but Butler-Creagh failed to establish any entitlement to quantum meruit or restitution. The claims by Butler-Creagh are dismissed; Cherrilow is entitled to a declaration of non-liability and damages for deceit.

Court Disposition

Claims by Butler-Creagh dismissed; Cherrilow's claim for deceit succeeds; declaration of non-liability to Butler-Creagh granted.

Orders

  • Butler-Creagh's claim against Hersham dismissed.
  • Butler-Creagh's counterclaim against Cherrilow dismissed.