Horner v Allison & Anor [2012] EWHC 3626 (QB) (17 December 2012)

Horner v Allison & Anor [2012] EWHC 3626 (QB) (17 December 2012)

The court found that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to the claimant regarding the legitimacy, approval, and operation of the film tax scheme, inducing him to participate and enabling them to obtain a tax refund on his behalf. The representations were false, the scheme was not approved by HMRC or BDO Stoy Hayward, and the defendants misapplied the funds. The court held that the defendants held the tax refund monies on trust for the claimant and were liable for breach of trust and fraudulent misrepresentation. The claim was not statute-barred due to the operation of s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980, as the claimant could not reasonably have discovered the fraud before...

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3626
Parties
Claimant: Dennis Karl Horner; First Defendant: Trisha Anastasia Allison (formerly known as Anastasia St. Raphael); Second Defendant: Adrian Ross
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Fraudulent Misrepresentation / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Limitation Periods, Trusts (quistclose Trust), Tax Refund Schemes, Breach of Trust
Civil Law Fraud Trusts Tax Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Limitation Periods Trusts (quistclose Trust) Tax Refund 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Karl Horner

Claimant

Trisha Anastasia Allison (formerly known as Anastasia St. Raphael)

First Defendant

Adrian Ross

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fraudulent Misrepresentation / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the claimant to participate in a film tax scheme
  2. 2 Whether the defendants held the tax refund monies on trust for the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the claim is statute-barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to the claimant regarding the legitimacy, approval, and operation of the film tax scheme, inducing him to participate and enabling them to obtain a tax refund on his behalf. The representations were false, the scheme was not approved by HMRC or BDO Stoy Hayward, and the defendants misapplied the funds. The court held that the defendants held the tax refund monies on trust for the claimant and were liable for breach of trust and fraudulent misrepresentation. The claim was not statute-barred due to the operation of s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980, as the claimant could not reasonably have discovered the fraud before...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimant £135,006.30 plus interest for breach of trust and fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • The defendants are to pay the claimant's costs.