Sun Life (Unit Services) Ltd v Moore [2002] EWCA Civ 656 (29 April 2002)
The judge found as a matter of fact that no binding promises or misrepresentations were made by the employer; the documentation was aspirational and not contractual. The applicant could not rely on the documents or alleged representations, and there was no basis for appellate interference with the trial judge's findings.
- Citation
- [2002] EWCA Civ 656
- Parties
- Respondent/claimant: Sun Life (Unit Services) Limited; Applicant/defendant: Andrew Philip Moore
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 29 April 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Employment Agreements, Loan Agreements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sun Life (Unit Services) Limited
Respondent/claimant
Andrew Philip Moore
Applicant/defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether misrepresentations or breaches of contract by the employer induced the applicant to enter into employment and loan agreements
- 2 Whether the employer made binding promises regarding support and provision of leads
Ratio Decidendi
The judge found as a matter of fact that no binding promises or misrepresentations were made by the employer; the documentation was aspirational and not contractual. The applicant could not rely on the documents or alleged representations, and there was no basis for appellate interference with the trial judge's findings.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment