Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Chandra & Anor (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Civ 192 (02 March 2011)

The statement by Mr Chandra that £700,000 would be enough to complete the hotel was an honest forecast, not a misrepresentation; Mrs Chandra understood it as a judgment, not a certainty. No undue influence or actionable misrepresentation was established. The appeal fails on these grounds.

Citation: [2011] EWCA Civ 192
Parties: Claimant: Royal Bank of Scotland PLC; Defendant: Bala Perampalam Chandra; Appellant (2nd Defendant): Maria Perpetua Chandra
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 02 March 2011
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Undue Influence, Misrepresentation, Personal Guarantees, Constructive Notice, Fiduciary Duties

Equity Contract Law Banking Law Undue Influence Misrepresentation Personal Guarantees Constructive Notice Fiduciary Duties

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14

Parties

Royal Bank of Scotland PLC

Claimant

Bala Perampalam Chandra

Defendant

Maria Perpetua Chandra

Appellant (2nd Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the first personal guarantee executed by Mrs Chandra was procured by undue influence or misrepresentation by her husband
2 Whether the bank was on constructive notice of undue influence or misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed