Mather v Rattan [2025] EWCA Civ 1596 (09 December 2025)

Mather v Rattan [2025] EWCA Civ 1596 (09 December 2025)

The appeal was dismissed because the claimants could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud before September 2015, they relied on the misrepresentation that Mr Basran was a de jure director, and their loss flowed directly from their reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentation. The judge correctly applied the law on limitation, reliance, and causation in deceit.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1596
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Nigel Mather; Claimant/respondent: Sharon Mather; Defendant/appellant: Balvinder Singh Rattan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Limitation Periods, Causation, Reliance, Directors' Duties
Civil Law Tort Law Company Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Limitation Periods Causation Reliance Directors' Duties

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Mather

Claimant/respondent

Sharon Mather

Claimant/respondent

Balvinder Singh Rattan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, section 32
  2. 2 Whether the claimants relied on the misrepresentation regarding the appointment of Mr Basran as director
  3. 3 Whether the misrepresentation caused the claimants' loss

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claimants could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud before September 2015, they relied on the misrepresentation that Mr Basran was a de jure director, and their loss flowed directly from their reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentation. The judge correctly applied the law on limitation, reliance, and causation in deceit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.
  • The judgment of the High Court awarding £1 million in damages to the Mathers stands.