Choi v Park & Anor [2019] EWHC 3191 (QB) (26 November 2019)

Choi v Park & Anor [2019] EWHC 3191 (QB) (26 November 2019)

Mr Park made false representations to Mr Choi regarding the length of the lease and the landlord's consent, which induced Mr Choi to enter into the agreement and make substantial payments. Mr Choi did not know the agreement was unlawful at the time of entry. The evidence did not support Ms Park's involvement in any conspiracy. Mr Park is liable for fraudulent misrepresentation under s.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967. The claims against Ms Park fail.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3191 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Chong Sung Choi; First Defendant: Mr Chan Mok Park; Second Defendant: Ms Sook Kyung Park
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against First Defendant (Mr Park) succeeds for misrepresentation; claim against Second Defendant (Ms Park) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Restitution, Quantum Meruit, Leasehold Assignment, Subletting, Commercial Leases
Contract Law Tort Law Property Law Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Unlawful Means Conspiracy Restitution +4 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Chong Sung Choi

Claimant

Mr Chan Mok Park

First Defendant

Ms Sook Kyung Park

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Mr Park make actionable misrepresentations to Mr Choi regarding the lease?
  2. 2 Did Mr Choi know the agreement was unlawful due to lack of landlord consent?
  3. 3 Was there an unlawful means conspiracy involving Ms Park?

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Park made false representations to Mr Choi regarding the length of the lease and the landlord's consent, which induced Mr Choi to enter into the agreement and make substantial payments. Mr Choi did not know the agreement was unlawful at the time of entry. The evidence did not support Ms Park's involvement in any conspiracy. Mr Park is liable for fraudulent misrepresentation under s.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967. The claims against Ms Park fail.

Court Disposition

Claim against First Defendant (Mr Park) succeeds for misrepresentation; claim against Second Defendant (Ms Park) dismissed.

Orders

  • First Defendant to pay the Claimant £101,500 in damages for misrepresentation.
  • Claim against Second Defendant dismissed.