Peekay Intermark Ltd. & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [2006] EWCA Civ 386 (06 April 2006)

Peekay Intermark Ltd. & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [2006] EWCA Civ 386 (06 April 2006)

Where a party is sent clear contractual documents describing the true nature of the investment and signs them without reading, the inducement for entering the contract is the party's own assumption, not the prior misrepresentation. The contract terms prevail, and the claim for misrepresentation fails.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 386
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Peekay Intermark Limited; Claimant/respondent: Harish Pawani; Defendant/appellant: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation Act 1967 S.2(1), Inducement, Contractual Estoppel, Interpretation of Contractual Documents, Investment Products, Emerging Markets Risk Disclosure
Contract Law Misrepresentation Banking and Finance Misrepresentation Act 1967 S.2(1) Inducement Contractual Estoppel Interpretation of Contractual Documents Investment Products +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peekay Intermark Limited

Claimant/respondent

Harish Pawani

Claimant/respondent

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was induced to enter into the investment contract by misrepresentation by the bank's employee
  2. 2 Whether the provision of formal contract documents (FTCs and Risk Disclosure Statement) corrected any prior misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's failure to read the contract documents precludes reliance on prior misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

Where a party is sent clear contractual documents describing the true nature of the investment and signs them without reading, the inducement for entering the contract is the party's own assumption, not the prior misrepresentation. The contract terms prevail, and the claim for misrepresentation fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimants set aside
  • Claim for damages for misrepresentation dismissed