Renault UK Ltd v Fleetpro Technical Services Ltd & Anor

Renault UK Ltd v Fleetpro Technical Services Ltd & Anor

Although the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations between 14 June 2005 and 12 July 2005, the claimant did not suffer loss as a result because it made profits on the sales and would not have otherwise sold the vehicles. The claimant either knew or turned a blind eye to the misuse of the BALPA FON after 12 July 2005, and thus did not rely on the misrepresentations. An account of profits is not available as a remedy in these circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: Renault UK Limited; First Defendant: FleetPro Technical Services Limited; Second Defendant: Russell Thoms
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Agency, Damages, Account of Profits
Tort Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Agency Damages Account of Profits

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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renault UK Limited

Claimant

FleetPro Technical Services Limited

First Defendant

Russell Thoms

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to the claimant regarding the use of the BALPA Fleet Operator Number (FON) for non-BALPA members.
  2. 2 Whether the misrepresentations were made to the claimant or to its agent, and whether knowledge of the agent is attributable to the claimant.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant relied on the misrepresentations and suffered loss as a result.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations between 14 June 2005 and 12 July 2005, the claimant did not suffer loss as a result because it made profits on the sales and would not have otherwise sold the vehicles. The claimant either knew or turned a blind eye to the misuse of the BALPA FON after 12 July 2005, and thus did not rely on the misrepresentations. An account of profits is not available as a remedy in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed