Gleave v Holder [2004] EWCA Civ 1192 (30 July 2004)

Gleave v Holder [2004] EWCA Civ 1192 (30 July 2004)

The defendant made false representations as to the age and authenticity of the motorcycle, knowing them to be false or being reckless as to their truth. The trial judge was entitled to find deceit and order rescission and repayment. The exclusion clauses could not be relied upon in the event of fraud. The refusal to admit further evidence or to adjourn for a new expert did not amount to procedural unfairness. There was no real prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1192
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Jim Gleave; Respondent/claimant: John Holder
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Judgment and Order of HHJ Cowell
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Rescission of Contract, Expert Evidence, Appeals Procedure
Contract Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Deceit Rescission of Contract Expert Evidence Appeals Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim Gleave

Applicant/defendant

John Holder

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Judgment and Order of HHJ Cowell

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations regarding the sale of a motorcycle
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to rescind the contract and recover sums paid
  3. 3 Whether exclusion clauses in auction conditions could be relied upon in the event of fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant made false representations as to the age and authenticity of the motorcycle, knowing them to be false or being reckless as to their truth. The trial judge was entitled to find deceit and order rescission and repayment. The exclusion clauses could not be relied upon in the event of fraud. The refusal to admit further evidence or to adjourn for a new expert did not amount to procedural unfairness. There was no real prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Order of HHJ Cowell stands: rescission of contract, repayment of £4,705 plus £1,426.09 interest, and £10,000 on account of costs