NGM Sustainable Developments Ltd v Wallis & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 619 (17 May 2016)

NGM Sustainable Developments Ltd v Wallis & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 619 (17 May 2016)

The application was refused because the judge correctly understood the pleaded case, found no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation, and there was no procedural error. The claim failed on the facts, and the Side Letter did not support the claimant's case.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 619
Parties
Claimant/appellant: NGM Sustainable Developments Limited; Defendant/respondent: Phillip Wallis; Defendant/respondent: Lizzano Limited; Defendant/respondent: Cascina Limited; Defendant/respondent: Kevin Reardon; Defendant/respondent: Hydro Properties Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hydro Properties Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Pleading Requirements, Remedies for Misrepresentation
Contract Law Fraud Fraudulent Misrepresentation Pleading Requirements Remedies for Misrepresentation

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

Parties

NGM Sustainable Developments Limited

Claimant/appellant

Phillip Wallis

Defendant/respondent

Lizzano Limited

Defendant/respondent

Cascina Limited

Defendant/respondent

Kevin Reardon

Defendant/respondent

Hydro Properties Limited

Defendant/respondent

Hydro Properties Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge misunderstood the claimant's pleaded case on fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the defendants made false representations regarding intention to provide long-term funding in accordance with the Side Letter
  3. 3 Whether any procedural error occurred justifying permission to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the judge correctly understood the pleaded case, found no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation, and there was no procedural error. The claim failed on the facts, and the Side Letter did not support the claimant's case.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused