Ali & Ors v Abbeyfield VE Ltd

Ali & Ors v Abbeyfield VE Ltd

The defendant, through its agent, made false and fraudulent representations regarding store performance, repayment periods, and risk, knowing them to be false or being reckless as to their truth. The claimants relied on these representations in entering the joint venture agreements and suffered loss. Exclusion clauses in the agreements did not protect the defendant from liability for fraud. The claimants are entitled to damages; the defendant's counterclaims are dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Colin Ali; Claimant: Melanie Davis; Claimant: Owain Golding; Claimant: Ian McGreavy; Defendant: Abbeyfield V. E. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claims allowed; counterclaims dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Rescission, Damages, Guarantee Liability, Exclusion Clauses, Reliance, Reasonableness Under Misrepresentation Act
Contract Tort Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Rescission Damages Guarantee Liability Exclusion Clauses +2 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Ali

Claimant

Melanie Davis

Claimant

Owain Golding

Claimant

Ian McGreavy

Claimant

Abbeyfield V. E. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations were made by the defendant to induce the claimants into joint venture agreements
  2. 2 Whether the claimants relied on the misrepresentations
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can rely on exclusion/disclaimer clauses to avoid liability

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, through its agent, made false and fraudulent representations regarding store performance, repayment periods, and risk, knowing them to be false or being reckless as to their truth. The claimants relied on these representations in entering the joint venture agreements and suffered loss. Exclusion clauses in the agreements did not protect the defendant from liability for fraud. The claimants are entitled to damages; the defendant's counterclaims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

claims allowed; counterclaims dismissed

Orders

  • Damages awarded to all claimants, quantum to be calculated as per judgment directions
  • Counterclaims by defendant dismissed