Burki v Seventy Thirty Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2151 (QB) (15 August 2018)

Burki v Seventy Thirty Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2151 (QB) (15 August 2018)

The court found that Seventy Thirty Ltd, through its agent, made false representations to Burki regarding the number and quality of eligible male members and their commitment, which induced her to contract. The representations were actionable misrepresentations. Burki was entitled to rescind the contract and recover her membership fee. However, her claim for damages for distress failed as the contract was not one for pleasure or peace of mind. Seventy Thirty Ltd's claims for defamation and malicious falsehood failed as the reviews were substantially true and not maliciously false.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2151
Parties
Claimant (hq17 X02160), Defendant (hq17 D00323): Tereza Burki; Defendant (hq17 X02160), Claimant (hq17 D00323): Seventy Thirty Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (consolidated Claims for Misrepresentation/deceit and Defamation/malicious Falsehood) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's (Burki) claim for misrepresentation succeeds in part; contract rescinded and fee refunded. Claim for damages for distress dismissed. Defendant's (Seventy Thirty Ltd) claims for defamation and malicious falsehood dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Deceit, Consumer Contracts, Damages, Libel, Malicious Falsehood
Contract Law Tort Law Defamation Misrepresentation Deceit Consumer Contracts Damages Libel +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tereza Burki

Claimant (hq17 X02160), Defendant (hq17 D00323)

Seventy Thirty Limited

Defendant (hq17 X02160), Claimant (hq17 D00323)

Procedural Posture

Civil (consolidated Claims for Misrepresentation/deceit and Defamation/malicious Falsehood) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Seventy Thirty Ltd made actionable misrepresentations to Tereza Burki regarding its membership and matchmaking services
  2. 2 Whether Tereza Burki was entitled to rescind the contract and recover her membership fee
  3. 3 Whether Seventy Thirty Ltd was defamed or suffered malicious falsehood by Burki's online reviews

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Seventy Thirty Ltd, through its agent, made false representations to Burki regarding the number and quality of eligible male members and their commitment, which induced her to contract. The representations were actionable misrepresentations. Burki was entitled to rescind the contract and recover her membership fee. However, her claim for damages for distress failed as the contract was not one for pleasure or peace of mind. Seventy Thirty Ltd's claims for defamation and malicious falsehood failed as the reviews were substantially true and not maliciously false.

Court Disposition

Claimant's (Burki) claim for misrepresentation succeeds in part; contract rescinded and fee refunded. Claim for damages for distress dismissed. Defendant's (Seventy Thirty Ltd) claims for defamation and malicious falsehood dismissed.

Orders

  • Seventy Thirty Ltd to refund Tereza Burki's membership fee of £12,600.
  • All other claims dismissed.