Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd v Bond Street Jewellers Ltd & Anor

Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd v Bond Street Jewellers Ltd & Anor

Mr Condrup, through his conduct and representations, fraudulently misrepresented that he had authority to pledge the necklace as security for the loan, when he did not; his defence was fanciful and had no real prospect of success, justifying summary judgment.

Parties
Appellant: Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd; 1st Respondent: Bond Street Jewellers Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Jonathan Rolf Condrup
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment entered for the appellant against the second respondent.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Implied Warranty of Title, Summary Judgment, Director's Personal Liability
Contract Law Tort Law Company Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Implied Warranty of Title Summary Judgment Director's Personal Liability

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd

Appellant

Bond Street Jewellers Ltd

1st Respondent

Jonathan Rolf Condrup

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Condrup fraudulently misrepresented his authority to pawn the necklace
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be entered against Mr Condrup
  3. 3 Whether a director can be personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation made on behalf of a company

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Condrup, through his conduct and representations, fraudulently misrepresented that he had authority to pledge the necklace as security for the loan, when he did not; his defence was fanciful and had no real prospect of success, justifying summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment entered for the appellant against the second respondent.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant against the second respondent for £80,000.
  • Judgment for £4,750 being the costs payable to Mr Hamilton.