Cabvision Ltd v Feetum & Ors

Cabvision Ltd v Feetum & Ors

Cabvision failed to prove any actionable dishonest or negligent misrepresentation by the Individual Defendants. No personal duty of care was established. The Firm (Dean & Dean) was liable for breach of duty in the costs dispute, but not for any broader retainer or negligence regarding completion of the TTT scheme. Damages for the costs retainer breach were assessed at £45,000.

Parties
Claimant: Cabvision Limited; First Defendant: Leonard Paul Feetum; Second Defendant: Stephen Richard Marsden; Third Defendant: Simon Alan Smith; Fourth Defendant: Dean & Dean
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract/negligence) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim against Individual Defendants and Dean & Dean (except as to costs retainer) dismissed; Claim against Dean & Dean for breach of costs retainer succeeds in part.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Deceit, Negligent Misstatement, Breach of Duty, Promoters' Liability, Solicitors' Duties, Damages
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Company Law Misrepresentation Deceit Negligent Misstatement Breach of Duty +3 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cabvision Limited

Claimant

Leonard Paul Feetum

First Defendant

Stephen Richard Marsden

Second Defendant

Simon Alan Smith

Third Defendant

Dean & Dean

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract/negligence) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Individual Defendants were liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation to Cabvision regarding the achievement of the Minimum Level of subscriptions in the TTT scheme.
  2. 2 Whether the Individual Defendants owed a duty of care to Cabvision and breached it.
  3. 3 Whether Dean & Dean (the Firm) was negligent in its conduct of the costs dispute and/or completion of the TTT scheme.

Ratio Decidendi

Cabvision failed to prove any actionable dishonest or negligent misrepresentation by the Individual Defendants. No personal duty of care was established. The Firm (Dean & Dean) was liable for breach of duty in the costs dispute, but not for any broader retainer or negligence regarding completion of the TTT scheme. Damages for the costs retainer breach were assessed at £45,000.

Court Disposition

Claim against Individual Defendants and Dean & Dean (except as to costs retainer) dismissed; Claim against Dean & Dean for breach of costs retainer succeeds in part.

Orders

  • Cabvision awarded £45,000 against Dean & Dean for breach of the costs retainer.
  • All other claims dismissed.