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, by their conduct and representations, fraudulently induced the claimant to participate in a tax refund scheme that was not legitimate, and that the defendants held the tax refund monies on trust for the claimant and misapplied them. The claim was not statute-barred as the limitation period was postponed until the claimant discovered the fraud.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3626 (QB)
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, Breach of Trust, Limitation Periods, Tax Refund Schemes
Civil Fraud Trusts Tax Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Trust Limitation Periods Tax Refund Schemes

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
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 tax refund film investment scheme.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants held the tax refund monies on trust for the claimant and breached that trust.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's action was statute-barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants, by their conduct and representations, fraudulently induced the claimant to participate in a tax refund scheme that was not legitimate, and that the defendants held the tax refund monies on trust for the claimant and misapplied them. The claim was not statute-barred as the limitation period was postponed until the claimant discovered the fraud.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The defendants are liable to the claimant for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • The defendants are liable to account as constructive trustees for the tax refund monies misapplied.